Gerecht EU: kamer van beroep onderschat dominante positie van ‘BIOGROUP’ en overeenstemming tussen beeldmerken

Gerecht EU 8 juli 2026, IEF 23681; IEFbe 4255; ECLI:EU:T:2026:449 (SCM Biogroup tegen EUIPO en Bio Group Medical System Srl). SCM Biogroup verzette zich tegen de inschrijving van het Uniebeeldmerk BIO-GROUP MEDICAL SYSTEM voor onderzoeks-, analyse-, test- en controlediensten in klasse 42. De oppositie was onder meer gebaseerd op het oudere Uniebeeldmerk BIOGROUP en op de handelsnaam SCM BIOGROUP en de domeinnaam biogroup.fr. Nadat de oppositieafdeling de oppositie had toegewezen, vernietigde de kamer van beroep die beslissing en wees zij de oppositie volledig af wegens het ontbreken van verwarringsgevaar. Het Gerecht bevestigt dat het relevante publiek hoofdzakelijk bestaat uit beroepsbeoefenaren met een relatief hoog aandachtsniveau. Ook onderschrijft het Gerecht dat het gemeenschappelijke element ‘biogroup’ of ‘bio-group’ slechts zwak onderscheidend is. De woorden ‘bio’ en ‘group’ zijn voor het relevante publiek begrijpelijk en hun samenvoeging levert geen ongebruikelijke of fantasievolle term op die meer is dan de som van de afzonderlijke bestanddelen. De overgelegde bewijzen tonen wel gebruik van het oudere merk aan, maar zijn onvoldoende om een door intensief gebruik of bekendheid versterkt onderscheidend vermogen vast te stellen.

De kamer van beroep heeft echter ten onrechte geoordeeld dat geen van de elementen van de tekens dominant was. Een zwak onderscheidend element kan de totaalindruk toch beheersen door zijn omvang, positie of presentatie. In het aangevraagde merk valt ‘BIO-GROUP’ op door zijn lengte, grootte, centrale positie en donkere kleur, terwijl ‘BIOGROUP’ in het oudere merk het enige woordelement is. Het woordelement domineert daarom in beide tekens. Het Gerecht stelt vervolgens vast dat de tekens gemiddeld visueel, ten minste gemiddeld fonetisch en slechts zwak begripsmatig overeenstemmen. De zwakke begripsmatige overeenstemming hangt samen met het beschrijvende karakter van het gemeenschappelijke element. Omdat de kamer van beroep bij de globale beoordeling ten onrechte was uitgegaan van hoogstens benedengemiddelde visuele en fonetische overeenstemming en de betrokken diensten als identiek had behandeld, kon zij niet zonder beoordelingsfout concluderen dat geen verwarringsgevaar bestond. Het Gerecht vernietigt daarom de beslissing wegens schending van artikel 8 lid 1 onder b UMVo. Het tweede middel, gebaseerd op artikel 8 lid 4 UMVo en de handelsnaam en domeinnaam, blijft onbesproken. EUIPO wordt veroordeeld in de proceskosten.

56      Consequently, having regard to the case-law referred to in paragraph 44 above, also referred to in paragraph 60 of the contested decision, it must be held that the Board of Appeal should have concluded from its own findings that the word element ‘biogroup’ or ‘bio-group’ dominated the other elements present in the marks at issue and, in particular, each of the figurative elements referring to the first letter of the term ‘bio’, in so far as, in principle, the average consumer will more easily refer to the goods at issue by citing the name than by describing the figurative element of those marks.

57      Consequently, by finding as it did in paragraph 61 of the contested decision and by concluding, without justification, that the signs at issue contained no element that could be considered clearly more dominant than other elements, the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment in its examination of the dominant character of the elements present in the signs at issue.

63      Indeed, even taking into account the differences in the signs at issue, which consist of purely descriptive or decorative elements, with the exception of the figurative element referring to the first letter of the term ‘bio’, which possesses a certain degree of distinctive character, it must be stated that the word element ‘biogroup’ or ‘bio-group’ stands out, in the mark applied for, due to its length, size, central position and dark colour (which contrasts with the light green of the other elements) and, in the earlier mark, by virtue of the fact that, although placed after the figurative element, it is the only word element to which the public will more easily refer. Given that the word element ‘biogroup’ or ‘bio-group’ dominates the other elements, it is such as to confer on the signs at issue an average degree of visual similarity.

64      Accordingly, it must be held that the Board of Appeal made an error in its assessment of the visual similarity of the signs at issue.

–       The phonetic comparison

65      In the present case, in paragraphs 66 to 68 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that the signs at issue exhibited, at most, a below-average degree of phonetic similarity, considering that the pronunciation of those signs coincided in the sound of the letter group ‘biogroup’, that the figurative element of the signs resembling the letter ‘b’ would not be pronounced, and that although those signs differed in that the additional element ‘medical system’ was present in the sign applied for, there was nothing to indicate that the relevant public would refer to one element rather than another as regards the pronunciation of the word elements, as both combinations of word elements consisted of weak or non-distinctive elements.

66      The applicant submits that, in addition to having distinctive character and constituting the dominant element of the signs at issue, the elements ‘biogroup’ and ‘bio-group’ are composed of the same eight letters, placed in exactly the same order, and are therefore phonetically identical. As regards the element ‘medical system’, the applicant submits that, in so far as it is purely descriptive and ancillary and is not likely to be pronounced by the relevant public, the Board of Appeal was wrong to find, in paragraph 67 of the contested decision, that there was nothing to indicate that the relevant public would refer to one element rather than another as regards the pronunciation of the word elements. The applicant also relies on the decision-making practice of the EUIPO Opposition Divisions and the case-law arising from the judgment of 21 June 2023, VITROMED Germany (T‑514/22, not published, EU:T:2023:350), arguing that the signs at issue exhibit a high or, at the very least, an above-average degree of phonetic similarity.

67      EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments.

68      In that regard, in view of the error noted in paragraph 54 above, in so far as the Board of Appeal should have taken account of the fact that the element ‘biogroup’ or ‘bio-group’, common to the signs at issue, dominated the other elements present in each of them, it must be held that the Board was not entitled to find that the signs at issue were phonetically similar to a below-average degree.

69      Indeed, the pronunciation of the signs at issue coincides in the sound of the letters of the element ‘biogroup’ or ‘bio-group’, whereas the figurative elements referring to the first letter of the term ‘bio’ and the other word element ‘medical system’ present in the mark applied for, which is non-distinctive, are not likely to affect the way in which the relevant public would pronounce the signs at issue. It follows that those signs are phonetically similar to at least an average degree.

70      Accordingly, it must be held that the Board of Appeal made an error in its assessment of the phonetic similarity of the signs at issue.

103    In that regard, it is apparent from paragraphs 63, 69 and 79 above that the signs at issue should have been found to have an average degree of visual similarity, at least an average degree of phonetic similarity and a low degree of conceptual similarity.

104    It must be stated that the Board of Appeal’s global assessment of the likelihood of confusion is based on the erroneous finding that the marks at issue exhibited, at most, a below-average degree of visual and phonetic similarity, such that that global assessment is itself erroneous, having regard to the case-law cited in paragraph 99 above.

105    It must therefore be held that, in so far as the Board of Appeal was treating the services covered by the marks at issue as identical, it could not, without committing an error, conclude in paragraph 92 of the contested decision that there was no likelihood of confusion.

106    Accordingly, the fourth part of the first plea must be upheld.

107    It follows from all of the foregoing that the first plea must be upheld as regards its second and fourth parts, and consequently that the contested decision must be annulled, without the need to examine the second plea.