23/06/2025
IKEA, famous flat-pack furniture (and meatball) maker, has recently enjoyed success in the EU in stopping another party from registering a mark very reminiscent of its IKEA logo.
EU Trade Mark Application Number 018970200 was filed by shenzhen 0615vape Co., Ltd. on 2 January 2024, for the trade mark below:
The Application covers various bags and luggage, including backpacks and purses.
For those familiar with the IKEA brand, the mark applied for bears a fairly striking resemblance to the stylisation of IKEA’s logo.
Unsurprisingly therefore, IKEA filed an opposition against the Application, relying on various Trade Mark Registrations, including EU Trade Mark Registration Number 018227645 for its IKEA logo, which the EUIPO chose as the basis for its decision:
IKEA argued that the IKIKI logo applied for was likely to cause consumer confusion with its IKEA logo, and that the IKIKI logo would take unfair advantage of or cause detriment to the reputation of its IKEA logo.
The EUIPO Opposition Division, in its decision of 2 April 2025, jumped straight to considering the latter ground, which relied on IKEA proving that its IKEA logo enjoys a reputation in the EU. The Opposition Division did not consider the ground based on consumer confusion, which included IKEA relying on its IKEA logo registered for goods identical to those covered by the IKIKI logo application.
Reputation of the IKEA logo
IKEA had submitted that its IKEA logo enjoys a reputation in the EU for various furniture and homeware goods and retail and resale services relating to furniture, and it filed extensive evidence in support of this.
The Opposition Division analysed IKEA’s evidence, finding that “the reputation of the earlier mark, is common knowledge internationally.”
The Opposition Division, in its analysis, commented that
“Reputation is usually built up over a number of years and cannot simply be turned on or off. All the articles and the long history of the ‘IKEA’ trade mark suggest that recognition of the mark dates back to at least 1965 with the opening of the first flagship store, which is still present. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates very clearly that the earlier trade mark has been subject to long-standing and intensive use over a very long time, being generally renowned on the furniture and home decoration market where it occupies a consolidated and very unique position among the leading trade marks, not only in Sweden but also worldwide.”
This lead the Opposition Division to conclude that “the evidence unequivocally demonstrates – and it can therefore be concluded – that the earlier trade mark obtained an outstanding reputation, at least in Sweden and at least for furniture in Class 20, not only before but also at the filing date of the contested application.” Because of this finding, the Opposition Division did not find it necessary to consider further whether IKEA enjoyed a reputation in its logo mark for any goods beyond furniture or for the retail and resale services.
It is worth noting that the Opposition Division considered that the use of
did not constitute an alteration to the distinctive character of the registered IKEA logo mark and so evidence showing the logo in the yellow and blue colourway and the bold font alone could be taken into account to establish reputation of the registered IKEA logo mark.
Comparing the trade marks and any link between them
Once IKEA had established a reputation in its IKEA logo mark, it was then on to consider the similarity between the marks, which the Opposition Division conducted from the perspective of Swedish consumers.
The respective marks were found to be visually similar to an above-average degree, with the Opposition Division noting that “the marks coincide in their backgrounds of a white ellipse against a rectangular black frame and in the very similar black and bold typeface, positioned in a very similar, if not identical, manner inside of the white ellipse against a black frame.” The Opposition Division discussed that visual similarity may be found where two marks share a figurative element that is visually perceived in an identical or similar way by consumers.
The marks were found to be aurally similar to a low degree and a conceptual comparison was not possible because both marks are meaningless for the relevant public.
The next step was to consider whether the relevant public would make a link between the IKIKI and IKEA logo marks. Owing to the “outstanding reputation” of the IKEA logo in relation to furniture, the Opposition Division found that there was a strong and distinct possibility that consumers would automatically find a link between IKEA’s furniture goods under the IKEA logo and the applicant’s bags and luggage goods under the IKIKI logo. Consumers would see bags and luggage as a brand extension of the IKEA product range.
Risk of injury to the IKEA logo
The Opposition Division focussed on whether the IKIKI logo would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the IKEA logo, and here IKEA was successful.
Unfair advantage will be found where there is an exploitation and ‘free-riding on the coat-tails’ of a famous mark or an attempt to trade upon the famous mark’s reputation.
The Opposition Division found that “it seems inevitable that the earlier trade mark’s image of being associated with an image of excellence, reliability, modern, cutting-edge and functional designs, eco-friendly simplicity, innovative and quality products, Swedish quality heritage, sustainability, affordable prices, and its reputation in the field of at least furniture, in Class 20, as shown in the evidence submitted, will be transferred to all the aforementioned contested goods if they are marketed under the contested sign.”
After taking this view in IKEA’s favour, the conclusion was that that the IKIKI logo was likely to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the IKEA logo, and so the ground of opposition was successful against the entirety of the Application.
Take home points
The decision noted the differences between the verbal elements of each mark – IKIKI vs IKEA – and that they differ in terms of letters and sounds. It was largely the stylisation of the IKIKI logo and how close it was to the IKEA logo which swung the case in IKEA’s favour. Even though IKEA’s reputation had been clearly established, the decision leaves whether there would have been a sufficient link between a plain IKEA word mark with no stylisation and the IKIKI logo. The fact that IKEA had registered its IKEA logo clearly worked in its favour.
Whilst plain word marks are usually the first port-of-call when registering trade marks to protect a brand, this decision shows that brand owners should also be considering registering the logo and stylisation of their brand. If the brand is very well-known, and more liable to be copied or cosied up to by others, it may be even more significant to protect logos, not just the brand name.
This case also serves as a reminder of the value of being able to furnish good evidence, especially if you are a brand who has put significant investment into building and maintaining a strong brand presence, like IKEA. We have seen in the past big brands fail to file good evidence, even where the trade mark is known to consumers (BIG MAC may be the example that springs to mind). IKEA’s evidence allowed the Opposition Division to find that the IKEA logo enjoys a reputation and describe it in glowing terms, noting that the IKEA trade mark “belongs to the exclusive club of global ‘super brands’ that are known in almost every household.” What brand would not want that finding in writing?
The appeal deadline for this decision has now passed, with no appeal being filed by the applicant. The EUIPO Opposition Division decision has now become final and IKEA can be satisfied that the Application will be refused in its entirety.
This article is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.
