EU trade mark disputes: gps global power service

On 19 June, in case T-312/23, the General Court of the European Union issued a decision in a dispute between the EU trade mark "gps global power service" and two earlier Spanish trade marks "GPG global power generation".

In December 2018, the Italian company Global Power Service SpA applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to register the sign "gps global power service" as an EU figurative trade mark (which took the shape of the three letters GPS written in large font with the “global power service” words under it in a smaller font), covering a wide range of services in classes 35, 36, 37, 42 and 45 of the Nice Classification, including management assistance and consultancy in the energy sector, financial services, installation services for products for the production and distribution of electricity, gas and water, and consultancy on energy saving measures. However, the Spanish company Naturgy Energy Group opposed the registration on the basis of its two earlier Spanish figurative marks, Nos 3532662 and 3547217, containing the sign "GPG global power generation" (with the letters GPG in a large font and the words “global power generation” in a smaller font under it), covering services in classes 35, 37 and 42. 

The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of the (EUIPO) rejected the opposition on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. They considered that given the nature of the services for which these trade marks were used, the level of attention of the relevant public for these services varied from above average to high and that there was only a low degree of similarity between the conflicting signs, which excluded any likelihood of confusion.

Naturgy Energy Group appealed the EUIPO decision to the General Court of the European Union, which had to decide whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in dispute.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the EUIPO's decision that the differences between the marks were sufficient to avoid any likelihood of confusion. As regards the relevant public for the services in question, the Court stated that these trade marks were directed at consumers of a professional profile with a high level of attention, which influenced the perception of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.