EU Court Weighs Linguistic Nuances in Trademark Disputes

The European Union’s legal system faces a linguistic labyrinth with 24 official languages and three alphabets, as revealed in a recent trademark case. This ruling highlights the challenges of assessing potential confusion between trademarks in diverse languages, crucial for protecting brand integrity across the EU market.

The Case Unpacked

In February 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered a judgment concerning the potential for conceptual overlap between two trademarks using distinct languages and alphabets. The core of the case involved a declaration of invalidity against EU trademarks using English word elements. This was initiated by a company citing their earlier trademarks in Russian and Cyrillic, all associated with “tea” in class 30.

Diving into the Details

The trademarks, at first glance, appeared dissimilar. However, those with some knowledge of Russian and English could recognize a shared meaning in the terms МАЙСКИЙ ЧАЙ and MAY TEA. The company, **May OOO**, contended that the relevant consumers, particularly Latvian speakers familiar with both English and Russian, would likely link the trademarks.

The EU General Court recently ruled on the conceptual comparison of trademarks across languages and alphabets, highlighting the complexity of linguistic diversity in trademark assessments. #EUlaw #trademarks example.com

— EU Intellectual Property (@EUIPO) March 8, 2024

The EUIPO Board of Appeal had previously recognized a conceptual identity, which led to invalidation of the **Schweppes May Tea** trademarks due to potential confusion. The court acknowledged differences between the signs, but noted how the consumer might perceive MAY TEA as a version of the earlier mark, adapted for the broader EU market.

The Court’s Reasoning

The EU General Court, while acknowledging conceptual similarity between the marks, emphasized that the likelihood of confusion considers all factors. These include similarities of goods, distinctiveness of the signs, visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities, as well as the reputation of the earlier mark. The court found the absence of a likelihood of confusion because of a lack of visual similarity, low phonetic similarity, and a lack of distinctiveness of terms like “tea” and “чай”.

“The Latvian public has at least a basic knowledge of English and Russian…”

— The EU General Court

Currently, around 66% of Latvian residents speak English according to the most recent data (Latvian Language Institute, 2024).

Implications for Trademark Professionals

The ruling against **May OOO** signals a reluctance to penalize a mark simply because it is a translation of an earlier one. Otherwise, trademark monopolies could be excessively extended. This reinforces the significance of considering all pertinent factors, notably the visual aspect, especially for everyday purchases.

This decision is a reassuring outcome for trademark professionals who are not required to extend prior art searches to all translations. Nevertheless, extra caution is advised when dealing with closely related languages or when a reputable earlier mark is at play.