OPPOSITION DIVISION

OPPOSITION No B 2 784 034

The 2026 Company Pte Ltd, #03-01, 8 Wilkie Road, Wilkie Edge, Singapore

228095, Singapore (opponent), represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau, 31-33

Rue de la Baume, 75008 Paris, France (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Code 2014 Development Corporation S.L., Avinguda Diagonal, 441, 4rt B, 08036

Barcelona, Spain (applicant), represented by March & Asociados, Passeig de

The opponent filed an opposition against some of the goods and services of

European Union trade mark application No 15 547 946 , namely against all

the goods in Classes 18 and 25 and some of the services in Class 35. The opposition

is based on European Union trade mark registration No 13 537 592 ‘OZIFY’. The

opponent invoked Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.

PRELIMINARY REMARK

As from 01/10/2017, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification),

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 and Implementing Regulation (EU)

2017/1431, subject to certain transitional provisions. All the references in this

decision to the EUTMR, EUTMDR and EUTMIR shall be understood as references to

on the appreciation in a global assessment of several factors, which are

interdependent. These factors include the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 2 of 11

goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the distinctive and

dominant elements of the conflicting signs, and the relevant public.

a) The goods and services

The goods on which the opposition is based are the following:

Class 9: Spectacles [glasses]; glasses cases; sun glasses.

Class 18: Brief cases; backpacks; schoolbags; cases for holding keys; credit-card

bags; holdalls; handbags; Boston bags; holdalls; clutch bags; bags for

climbers; bags for campers; beach bags; handbag frames; frames for

umbrellas or parasols; parasols; alpenstocks; sport bags; net bags for

shopping; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging; travel

cases; keycases; attache cases; coin purses, not of precious metal;

boxes made of leather; sling bags for carrying infants; wheeled shopping

bags; boxes made of leather; leatherboard; boxes of vulcanised fibre;

card cases (notecases); wallets; handbags; satchels; vanity cases, not

fitted; collars for animals; dog leashes; laces (leather -); umbrella covers;

covers for horse saddles; haversacks; backpacks; reins; leather thread;

harness straps; straps of leather [saddlery]; straps for skates; trimmings

of leather for furniture; leather straps; butts [parts of hides]; curried skins;

covers and wraps for animals; stirrups; rubber parts for stirrups; bits for

animals [harness]; reins; carrying cases; moleskin [imitation of leather];

hides; skins of chamois, other than for cleaning purposes; feed bags;

casings, of leather, for springs; knee-pads for horses; riding saddles;

fastenings for saddles; traces (harness); valves of leather.

Class 25: Clothing; footwear; headgear; motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; bibs,

not of paper; headbands [clothing]; bathrobes; bathing suits; caps

[headwear]; bath sandals; boas [necklets]; athletics shoes; beach shoes;

mittens; ear muffs [clothing]; insoles; cuffs; dress shields; beachwear;

lounging robes; overalls; pockets for clothing; sock suspenders; stocking

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 3 of 11

suspenders; petticoats; tights; leotards; aprons [clothing]; costumes;

uniforms; visors [headwear]; wooden shoes; bonnets; coats; espadrilles;

non-slipping devices for footwear; bathrobes; bath shoes; caps

[headwear]; blouses; teddies [undergarments]; berets; footmuffs, not

electrically heated; lace boots; boots; boot uppers; studs for football

boots; booties; fittings of metal for footwear; tips for footwear; heelpieces

for footwear; shirts; shirt yokes; shirt fronts; tee-shirts; short-sleeved t-

shirts; bodices [lingerie]; waistcoats; jackets [clothing]; fishing vests; stuff

jackets [clothing]; slips [undergarments]; ready-to-wear clothing;

detachable collars; shoulder wraps; leather clothing; clothing of imitations

of leather; shower caps; slippers; skirts; trousers; linings (ready-made -)

pocket squares; parkas; pelerines; pelisses; puttees and gaiters; knitwear

wimples; togas; trouser straps; suits; turbans; gowns; slippers; footwear.

goods or services are not regarded as being similar to or dissimilar from each other

on the ground that they appear in the same or different classes under the Nice

Classification.

The relevant factors relating to the comparison of the goods or services include, inter

alia, the nature and purpose of the goods or services, the distribution channels, the

sales outlets, the producers, the method of use and whether they are in competition

with each other or complementary to each other.

Contested goods in Class 18

Therefore, they are identical.

The contested holdalls (listed twice) are included in the broad category of, or overlap

with, the opponent’s all purpose sport bags. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested clutch bags; coin purses, not of precious metal are included in the

broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s handbags, purses and wallets.

The contested card cases (notecases) overlap with, the opponent’s credit-card

holders, and the contested attache cases overlap with the opponent’s brief cases.

overlap with, the opponent’s backpacks. Since the Opposition Division cannot dissect

ex officio the broad categories of the contested goods, they are considered identical.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 4 of 11

The contested casual bags; Boston bags; haversacks; vanity cases, not fitted; tool

bags of leather, empty; carrying cases; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for

packaging; boxes made of leather (listed twice); boxes of vulcanised fibre are all

items that have the same purpose, namely they are designed for carrying or storing

other objects in. They may be manufactured by the same companies, distributed

through the same commercial channels and target the same relevant consumers as

the opponent’s backpacks; handbags or articles of luggage. Therefore, they are

similar.

The contested net bags for shopping; wheeled shopping bags; shopping bags can

cleaning purposes; butts [parts of hides]; curried skins are raw materials for making

their natures, purposes, relevant publics and distribution channels are usually

distinct. According to case-law, raw materials subject to a transformation process are

essentially different from the finished products that incorporate, or are covered by,

those raw materials, in terms of nature, aim and intended purpose (03/05/2012,

T-270/10, Karra, EU:T:2012:212, § 53). Furthermore, they are not complementary,

since one is manufactured with the other, and raw materials are in general intended

for use in industry rather than for direct purchase by the final consumer (09/04/2014,

T-288/12, Zytel, EU:T:2014:196, § 39-43). They have nothing relevant in common

with the opponent’s goods in Class 9 either. Therefore, they are dissimilar.

harness fittings; walking stick seats; shoulder belts; straps (leather -) (listed twice);

muzzles; horse bridles; head-stalls; straps for soldiers’ equipment; harness straps;

straps of leather [saddlery]; straps for skates; trimmings of leather for furniture;

leather straps; covers and wraps for animals; stirrups; rubber parts for stirrups; bits

for animals [harness]; ]; reins; feed bags; casings, of leather, for springs; knee-pads

for horses; riding saddles; fastenings for saddles; traces (harness); valves of leather

are various kinds of goods intended for humans and animals. They have different

Classes 9, 18 and 25, which are glasses, bags and articles of clothing. They do not

usually have the same retail outlets and are not usually made by the same

manufacturers. The fact that these contested goods can be made of the same raw

Clothing; footwear (listed twice); headgear; belts [clothing] are identically contained in

both lists of goods.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 5 of 11

The contested motorists’ clothing; cyclists’ clothing; headbands [clothing]; bathing

suits; boas [necklets]; cowls [clothing]; shawls; wetsuits for water-skiing; neckties;

corsets; girdles (listed twice); fur stoles; scarves; gloves [clothing]; rainproof clothing;

underwear; stockings; socks; furs [clothing]; pyjamas; veils [clothing]; braces for

clothing [suspenders]; layettes [clothing]; shoulder wraps; singlets; mittens; ear muffs

[clothing]; cuffs; beachwear; lounging robes; overalls; sock suspenders; stocking

suspenders; petticoats; tights; leotards; aprons [clothing]; costumes; uniforms; coats;

blouses; teddies [undergarments]; footmuffs, not electrically heated; shirts; tee-shirts;

short-sleeved t-shirts; bodices [lingerie]; waistcoats; jackets [clothing]; fishing vests;

stuff jackets [clothing]; slips [undergarments]; ready-to-wear clothing; detachable

[clothing]; parkas; pelerines; pelisses; puttees and gaiters; knitwear [clothing];

the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s clothing. Therefore, they are

category of the opponent’s headgear. Therefore, they are identical.

The contested bath sandals; athletics shoes; beach shoes; wooden shoes;

espadrilles; bath shoes; lace boots; boots; booties; slippers; gymnastic shoes;

sandals; slippers are included in the broad category of the opponent’s footwear.

Therefore, they are identical.

The contested money belts [clothing] are included in the broad category of, or

overlap with, the opponent’s belts (clothing). Therefore, they are identical.

additions to a blazer or suit jacket; and the contested trouser straps are fabric or

leather straps worn over the shoulders to hold up trousers. These are various

clothing articles that usually complement other clothing articles. They are considered

similar to the opponent’s clothing, since they can have the same manufacturers,

relevant consumers and distribution channels. Moreover, they may either have the

same method of use or be complementary to each other.

deodoriser or to improve the fit; the contested studs for football boots are small

protrusions fixed to the base of football boots to allow wearers to grip the ground.

They can have the same producers, end users and distribution channels as the

clothing]; footwear uppers are parts for clothing and footwear that are usually

intended for undertakings manufacturing the end product, not for the general public.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 6 of 11

They have different purposes, relevant consumers, manufacturers and distribution

channels from the opponent’s goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25. Therefore, they are

dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 35

Retail services in general are not similar to any goods that can be sold at retail. Apart

from being different in nature, given that services are intangible whereas goods are

tangible, they serve different needs. Furthermore, the method of use of those goods

and services is different. They are neither in competition with, nor necessarily

complementary to, each other. However, some degree of similarity can be found

low degree to the opponent’s clothing in Class 25 and handbags in Class 18.

However, the contested retailing of fashion articles and retailing of articles of leather

include, inter alia, retailing of the goods in Classes 18 and 25 that were found to be

dissimilar to the opponent’s goods. Given that the retail services are different in

nature from the opponent’s goods, as services are intangible whereas goods are

tangible, they serve different needs, their methods of use are different and they are

neither in competition with, nor necessarily complementary to, each other, the

contested services are considered dissimilar to the opponent’s goods in Classes 9,

18 and 25.

according to the category of goods or services in question.

In the present case, the goods and services found to be identical or similar (to

varying degrees) are directed at the public at large. The degree of attention is

considered average.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 7 of 11

The relevant territory is the European Union.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in

question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in

mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components (11/11/1997, C-251/95,

Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 23).

The earlier mark is a word mark, ‘OZIFY’. The word as such conveys no meaning;

however, it cannot be excluded that the relevant consumers, when perceiving a

verbal sign, will break it down into elements that suggest a concrete meaning, or that

example, the English-speaking part of the public may recognise the part ‘OZ’ as a

adjectives and nouns to form verbs meaning ‘to cause an increase in the stated

relation to the relevant goods for the part of the public that perceives it in this way.

For the part of the public that perceives the word ‘OZIFY’ as a meaningless word

(e.g. the Spanish-, Romanian-, Czech-, Slovenian- and Hungarian-speaking parts of

the public), the distinctiveness of this word is normal, since it will not be perceived as

describing or alluding to any characteristics of the relevant goods.

The contested sign is a figurative mark, consisting of the word ‘OZZI’, an ampersand

(‘&’) and the abbreviation ‘CO’, written in black slightly stylised upper case letters,

and a figurative element above this verbal element, consisting of part of a circle in a

uniform green colour. A part of the relevant public (e.g. the English-speaking part of

attention to this element and its distinctiveness, if any, is very low. The figurative

element of the contested sign consists of part of a simple geometrical shape in green

and is essentially decorative in nature. Consequently, the word ‘OZZI’ is the most

distinctive element of the contested sign.

Considering the abovementioned possible perceptions of the signs and bearing in

mind that similarities between signs are greater when the commonalities reside in

similarity from the perspective that represents the most advantageous scenario for

the opponent, namely that of the part of the public that will perceive the word ‘OZIFY’,

and the word ‘OZZI’, as meaningless words, each of them having an average degree

most dominant (visually eye-catching) element of the contested sign.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 8 of 11

Visually, the signs are similar to the extent that they coincide in their first two letters,

‘OZ’, and the letter ‘I’, which is the third letter of the earlier mark, ‘OZIFY’, and the last

(fourth) letter of the verbal element ‘OZZI’ of the contested sign. However, the signs

differ in all other aspects, namely the last letters, ‘FY’, of the earlier mark, the third

letter, ‘Z’, of the verbal element ‘OZZI’ of the contested sign and the verbal element ‘&

CO’, and the figurative element (including its colour) of the contested sign.

The opponent claims that the signs have similar lengths and almost identical

beginnings, ‘OZI’ and ‘OZZI’, which are major and eye-catching components of the

signs as a result of the unusual use of these sequences at the beginnings of words,

and that consumers will therefore be more likely to focus on the commonalities. In

be drawn (07/05/2009, T-185/07, CK Creaciones Kennya, EU:T:2009:147, § 45). In

and ‘OZZI’ are the same and the signs also have the letter ‘I’ in common (albeit in

‘OZZI’, is a rather short word which will be perceived immediately and in its entirety

by the relevant public. Consequently, the public will be able to more easily perceive

all its individual elements and will notice the differences between the word ‘OZZI’ and

the earlier mark, ‘OZIFY’.

Moreover, the contested sign also has additional verbal and figurative elements that,

although weak, are not negligible in the overall visual composition of the mark and

will create additional visual differences from the earlier mark, especially considering

the striking and dominant nature of the figurative element.

element ‘OZZI’ of the contested mark will be pronounced in either the same way or

similar ways by the relevant public. However, the pronunciation of the signs clearly

differs in the sound of the last letters, ‘FY’, of the earlier mark versus the ending ‘&

CO’ of the contested sign. The figurative element of the contested sign will not be

referred to orally by the relevant public.

Although, as correctly stated by the opponent, the pronunciation of the signs will

fact that the earlier mark will be pronounced as three syllables, /O-ZI-FY/, whereas

the distinctive element of the contested sign as two, as well as the striking aural

difference in the pronunciation of the third syllable, /FY/, of the earlier mark, will

the word ‘company’. Although the element ‘& CO’ is considered very weak (if not non-

Decision on Opposition No B 2 784 034 page: 9 of 11

distinctive), it is clearly perceptible and will probably be pronounced by the relevant

consumers.

Since it cannot be generally assumed that consumers would remember the similar

elements of the marks better than their differing elements, the signs are considered

aurally similar to an average degree.

Conceptually, neither the earlier mark, ‘OZIFY’, nor the distinctive element ‘OZZI’ of

the contested mark has a meaning for the public in the relevant territory. Although the

verbal element ‘& CO’ of the contested sign will evoke a concept (as explained

above), considering the weight attributed to this element, the attention of the relevant

figurative element of the contested sign will not convey any concept, a conceptual

the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

The distinctiveness of the earlier mark is one of the factors to be taken into account

in the global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

The opponent did not explicitly claim that its mark is particularly distinctive by virtue

of intensive use or reputation.

Consequently, the assessment of the distinctiveness of the earlier mark will rest on its

e) Global assessment, other arguments and conclusion

Evaluating likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the

relevant factors and, in particular, a similarity between the marks and between the

goods or services. Therefore, a lesser degree of similarity between goods and/or

services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks and vice

versa (29/09/1998, C-39/97, Canon, EU:C:1998:442, § 17).

As concluded above, the contested goods and services are partly identical, partly

similar (to varying degrees) and partly dissimilar to the opponent’s goods, and they

target the public at large with an average degree of attention. The degree of

similarity.