Gerecht EU: geen verwarringsgevaar tussen DENTEK en dentix ondanks identieke of soortgelijke tandverzorgingsproducten

Gerecht EU 7 oktober 2026, IEF 23914, IEFbe 4348; ECLI:EU:T:2026:637 (dentix). Dentek Oral Care heeft oppositie ingesteld tegen de inschrijving van het Uniebeeldmerk ‘dentix’ voor onder meer tandpasta, tandzijde en tandenborstels in de klassen 3 en 21. De oppositie is gebaseerd op twee oudere Uniewoordmerken DENTEK en twee oudere Uniebeeldmerken DenTek. Volgens Dentek Oral Care bestaat verwarringsgevaar in de zin van artikel 8 lid 1 onder b van Verordening (EU) 2017/1001 (UMVo). De oppositieafdeling van EUIPO wees de oppositie toe vanwege verwarringsgevaar bij een deel van het Bulgaarstalige of Griekstalige publiek. De kamer van beroep vernietigde die beslissing en oordeelde dat geen verwarringsgevaar bestond, ook niet voor identieke waren. Het Gerecht onderschrijft het oordeel van de kamer van beroep dat het gemeenschappelijke element ‘dent’ door het relevante publiek in de gehele Europese Unie wordt herkend als een verwijzing naar tandverzorging en daarom een zwak onderscheidend vermogen heeft. Dentek Oral Care heeft onvoldoende onderbouwd dat dit voor het Bulgaarstalige of Griekstalige publiek anders ligt. Hoewel beide tekens uit zes letters bestaan en de eerste vier letters identiek zijn, is de visuele overeenstemming gering. Het geringe onderscheidend vermogen van het gemeenschappelijke element ‘dent’ vermindert namelijk het gewicht van die overeenstemming, terwijl de uitgangen ‘ek’ en ‘ix’ van elkaar verschillen.

Het Gerecht bevestigt dat de fonetische overeenstemming iets groter is dan de visuele overeenstemming en dat de begripsmatige overeenstemming gering is. Het oudere woordmerk DENTEK heeft als geheel een zwak inherent onderscheidend vermogen, omdat het kan worden opgevat als een verwijzing naar ‘dental technology’. Bij de globale beoordeling van het verwarringsgevaar weegt bovendien mee dat tandverzorgingsproducten doorgaans in zelfbedieningswinkels worden verkocht, waardoor de visuele waarneming van de merken belangrijker is dan de fonetische overeenstemming. Het Gerecht benadrukt dat een zwak onderscheidend vermogen van een ouder merk verwarringsgevaar niet op voorhand uitsluit, maar dat de verschillen tussen de tekens in dit geval zwaarder wegen dan hun overeenstemming in het zwak onderscheidende element ‘dent’. Dit geldt ook wanneer de betrokken waren identiek of soortgelijk zijn. Ook ten aanzien van de oudere beeldmerken bestaat geen verwarringsgevaar, mede omdat de beeldelementen onvoldoende onderscheidend zijn om tot een andere beoordeling te leiden. Het Gerecht verwerpt het beroep van Dentek Oral Care en laat de beslissing van de kamer van beroep in stand.

96      First of all, it must be borne in mind that, where the elements of similarity between two signs arise from the fact that, as in the present case, they share a component which has weak inherent distinctiveness, the impact of such elements of similarity on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion is itself low (see judgments of 15 October 2020, Decathlon v EUIPO – Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear), T‑349/19, not published, EU:T:2020:488, paragraph 90, and of 20 January 2021, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO – M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI), T‑328/17 RENV, not published, EU:T:2021:16, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).

97      That is the case here in respect of the weakly distinctive element of similarity ‘dent’, the presence of which in both signs is not decisive, but must be taken into account in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case.

98      Next, it follows from the foregoing considerations that the level of attention of the relevant public is average and that the signs at issue have only a low degree of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity. The similarities relate to the presence of the weakly distinctive element ‘dent’ and are offset by the presence of the meaningless endings ‘ix’ and ‘ek’, which create a difference between the signs at issue, taken as a whole.

99      As regards the argument claiming, in essence, that the Board of Appeal placed undue weight on the visual comparison between the marks at issue, it should be noted that, even if, as the applicant submits, on the one hand, the goods in question may be advertised orally, on the radio or by other consumers, and, on the other hand, the decision to purchase them may be preceded by an oral discussion about their characteristics and their marks, this cannot invalidate the Board of Appeal’s finding that, in view of the way in which the goods in question are marketed, the relevant public will be influenced more by the visual aspect of the marks at issue than by their phonetic aspect.

100    In general, the goods in question are sold in shops that operate on a self-serve basis, even if they employ staff to help customers in their choice, a fact which, moreover, is not disputed by the applicant. Therefore, although oral communication regarding the goods in question and their marks cannot be ruled out, the visual perception of the signs at issue will normally occur prior to the act of purchase and that act will take place almost without interaction with any sales assistants, the consumer having to look for the goods visually. Even assuming that, in some cases, the goods in question may also be sold in response to an oral order or that the selection of goods may require professional advice or consultation or be accompanied by a process of communication with the seller, those aspects cannot be regarded as usual in the purchase of those goods. Thus, in most cases, the phonetic perception of the marks will not precede purchase (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 October 2023, Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachfolger v EUIPO – Bit Beauty (ayuna LESS IS BEAUTY), T‑490/22, not published, EU:T:2023:616, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited).

101    Thus, as EUIPO observes, although the phonetic similarity of the signs at issue cannot be ignored, its impact can only be limited, given the ways and conditions under which the goods in question are marketed.

102    Consequently, the Board of Appeal did not err, in its global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in noting the greater importance of visual similarity in the comparison of the signs at issue.

103    The circumstances of the present case are therefore such that the relevant public will clearly distinguish between the signs at issue, even if they have a low degree of similarity due to the presence of the common element ‘dent’ and even if the goods in question are identical or similar, as the differences between the signs at issue outweigh, in the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the similarities arising from that common element – which has a weak distinctive character – and given that the earlier word mark has a weak distinctive character.

104    It follows that, overall, having regard to the fact that the level of attention of the relevant public is average, that the goods in question are considered to be identical or similar, that the earlier word mark has a weak distinctive character and that the signs at issue are visually similar to a low degree, with a degree of phonetic similarity which is slightly higher than the degree of visual similarity, taking into account, however, that the visual impact is greater than the phonetic impact, and that they are conceptually similar to a low degree, the Board of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, following a global assessment of all the factors relevant to the present case.

105    Furthermore, as regards the applicant’s remarks relating, in essence, to the likelihood of association between the marks at issue on account of the use of the common element ‘dent’, it must be borne in mind that the likelihood of association is a specific case of the likelihood of confusion, which is characterised by the fact that the signs at issue, while not likely to be confused directly by the target public, could be perceived as being two marks belonging to the same holder. While that may be the case, in particular, where the two marks appear to belong to a series of marks based on a common core element, it must be stated that that cannot be the case here, since the element ‘dent’ has a weak distinctive character which, as a result, is not apt to create, on the part of the target public, a likelihood of association between the signs at issue (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 July 2004, Grupo El Prado Cervera v OHIM – Héritiers Debuschewitz (CHUFAFIT), T‑117/02, EU:T:2004:208, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).