23/06/2025
Two recent decisions of the General Court demonstrate the difficulties of establishing strong trade mark rights over a single letter.
On 15 July 2021, Bosca Cora S.p.A. (“Bosca Cora”) filed EUTM Application No 018514607 for the word-mark It’s B, then the following day filed EUTM Application No 018515792 for the Stylised version:
Both applications were in Classes 32 & 33, for goods including soft drinks, wines, and alcoholic beverages.
On 9 November 2021, Sumol + Compal Marcas SA (“Sumol + Compal”) opposed both of these EUTM applications. The oppositions were based on their prior Portuguese Registration No 597 678 in Classes 32 & 33, which protected goods including soft drinks and other beverages:
Both oppositions were successful, with the EUIPO Opposition Division finding a likelihood of confusion – mostly because the signs shared the common element ‘B’ and covered identical goods.
However, Bosca Cora appealed against these decisions and the EUIPO’s Fourth Board of Appeal overturned them, finding no likelihood of confusion between the signs. This was primarily due to the Board’s finding of the weak distinctiveness of the letter ‘B’ and the visual and phonetic differences between the marks overall.
Sumol + Compal then brought two actions before the General Court, seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Board of Appeal. They argued that the letter ‘B’ is the main element of the opposed marks and is primarily how they would be identified by the public. They contended that the stylisation was secondary in the case of EUTM Application No 018515792 for the Stylised mark and that the star element in that mark lacked distinctiveness. Additionally, they claimed that the expression ‘It’s‘ in both of the opposed marks had no distinctive character and simply consisted of a reference to the letter ‘B’.
Sumol + Compal argued that the Board of Appeal had erred in considering that the letter ‘B’ was weakly distinctive and thus had a diminished capacity to influence the impression produced by the respective marks.. This was disputed by both the EUIPO and the General Court, with the Court recalling case law regarding the distinctiveness of single-letter marks. The Court noted that, as a rule, a sign consisting of a single letter possesses only a minimum or weak degree of distinctive character, particularly when the letter is not highly stylised or is only accompanied by simple figurative elements.
Sumol + Compal’s earlier mark was analysed as consisting of the letter ‘B’ in a black, upper-case, three-dimensional, bold font, accompanied by an exclamation mark resembling a leaf. The Court held that the depiction of a leaf in the earlier mark would be perceived as an indication that the goods covered by that mark were plant-based or included natural ingredients, or as a laudatory message.
In the case of opposed EUTM Application No 018515792 for the Stylised mark, the Court commented that the mark includes the word elements ‘It’s’ and ‘B’ in a stylised, handwritten typeface, with a star in the upper left corner. The star was regarded by the Court as a simple ornament with no meaning. In the case of opposed EUTM Application No 018514607 , the word-mark was found to consist solely of the words “It’s’ and the letter ‘B’. The Court held that the contraction ‘It’s’ would probably not be considered by the relevant public as highly distinctive, while the graphic representation of the letter ‘B’ was not highly stylised in either of the opposed marks.
Following established case law, the Court concluded that the element “B” had, in itself, only a weak degree of distinctiveness. This letter was the only common element between Sumol + Compal’s earlier mark and the opposed marks. The Court emphasised that the weak distinctiveness of this single letter significantly lessened the impact of this common element in the overall comparison of the marks. While the presence of a common element could not be disregarded, its weak distinctiveness meant that it played a reduced role in the assessment of similarity.
Sumol + Compal argued that the letter ‘B’ should be considered as the dominant and distinctive element of the respective marks. The Court rejected this argument and maintained that the assessment must consider the marks as a whole and not focus solely on the common letter, especially when that letter is inherently weakly distinctive.
Consequently, the Court agreed with the Board of Appeal that the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks were low. The presence of the letter ‘B’ in all of the marks was not found to be sufficient to outweigh the differences in stylisation, additional elements (the contraction ‘It’s’, exclamation mark/leaf, star) and overall appearance.
The Court concluded that the opposed marks coincided with the earlier mark only in the shared letter ‘B’, which in itself was only weakly distinctive and was also stylised differently from the opposed Stylised mark. The Court considered that the visual and phonetic differences resulting from the presence of the exclamation mark in the shape of a leaf in Sumol + Compal’s earlier mark and the word element ‘It’s’ in the opposed marks, as well as the overall appearance, the length and pronunciation of those marks, would be easily perceptible by the relevant public irrespective of the fact that the public retains only an imperfect recollection of the marks.
By its judgments of 14 May 2025 in Cases T-282/24 and T-283/24, the General Court ruled that the decisions of the Board of Appeal were correct and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the respective marks.
In dismissing both actions for annulment of the decisions of the Board of Appeal, the Court ordered Sumol + Compal to pay the costs incurred by Bosca Corpa.
As illustrated by these decisions, it is very hard to establish strong exclusive rights in a single letter. Where the only common feature between marks is a discrete single letter element, even relatively minor differences between the marks overall may be sufficient for no likelihood of confusion to be found, even where identical goods / services are in question.
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.
