OPPOSITION DIVISION

OPPOSITION No B 2 815 283

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, F-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 15 783 897 , 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have been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (codification),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

economically linked undertakings. Whether a likelihood of confusion exists depends

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

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

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

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 page: 2 of 11

a) The goods and services

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];

animal skins; 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

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

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 page: 3 of 11

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;

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

As a preliminary remark, it is to be noted that according to Article 33(7) EUTMR,

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.

in the broad category of, or overlap with, the opponent’s articles of luggage.

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

Therefore, they are identical.

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

The contested bags for climbers; bags for campers include as broader categories, or

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.

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

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

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 page: 4 of 11

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

items that have the same, 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

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; headgear; belts [clothing] are identically contained in both lists of

goods.

The contested shoes are included in the broad category of the opponent’s footwear.

Therefore, they are identical.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 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

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

The contested caps [headwear] (listed four times); visors [headwear]; bonnets;

shower caps; berets; hats; mantillas; turbans; wimples are included in the broad

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.

neck to keep its clothes clean while eating; the contested bandanas [neckerchiefs]

are large handkerchiefs, typically having a colourful pattern, worn tied around the

head or neck; the contested pocket squares are pieces of fabric worn as decorative

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,

same method of use or be complementary to each other.

The contested insoles are removable soles worn in a shoe for warmth, as a

The contested footwear soles; heels; dress shields; pockets for clothing; non-slipping

devices for footwear; boot uppers; fittings of metal for footwear; tips for footwear;

heelpieces for footwear; shirt yokes; shirt fronts; linings (ready-made -) [parts of

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

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

They have different purposes, relevant consumers, manufacturers and distribution

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 page: 6 of 11

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

dissimilar.

Contested services in Class 35

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

the same, they have some similarities, as they are complementary and the services

are generally offered in the same places where the goods are offered for sale.

Furthermore, they target the same public.

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

retailing of bed covers and table covers, bath linen and towels include, inter alia,

retailing of the goods in Classes 18 and 25 that were found to be dissimilar to the

opponent’s goods or retailing of the goods that have nothing in common with the

relevant goods. Given that the retail services are different in nature, as services are

intangible whereas goods are tangible, they serve different needs, their methods of

The average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be

reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also

be borne in mind that the average consumer’s degree of attention is likely to vary

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

considered average.

OZIFY

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 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,

27/10/2017 at http://dictionary.cambridge.org). Therefore, when taken as a whole, the

word ‘OZIFY’ may be perceived as alluding to goods imbued with an Australian

quality or Australian qualities, and its distinctiveness will be lower than average in

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-, Hungarian-speaking part 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 verbal element ‘OZZI’

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

distinctive elements, the Opposition Division will continue with the assessment of

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

of distinctiveness.

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

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 page: 8 of 11

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

and that consumers will therefore be more likely to focus on the commonalities. 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 figurative element that, although

being decorative in nature, is not negligible in the overall visual composition of the

mark and, considering its dominant nature, will create additional visual differences

from the earlier mark.

element ‘OZZI’ of the contested sign 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, which has no

counterparts in 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

Conceptually, neither of the signs has a meaning for the public in the relevant

territory. Since a conceptual comparison is not possible, the conceptual aspect does

not influence the assessment of the similarity of the signs.

Decision on Opposition No B 2 815 283 page: 9 of 11

As the signs have been found similar in at least one aspect of the comparison, the

examination of likelihood of confusion will proceed.

d) Distinctiveness of the earlier mark

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

normal.

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).

The earlier mark and the contested sign are similar insofar as they have the same

first two letters ‘OZ’ and the letter ‘I’, albeit in a different position. However, as

explained in detail in section c), these commonalities can only lead to a finding of a

lower than average degree of visual similarity and an average degree of aural

similarity.

Furthermore, the goods themselves are fairly ordinary consumer products. The

are marketed in such a way that, when making a purchase, the relevant public

usually perceives the mark designating those goods visually, as is the case for the

goods at issue that have been considered identical or similar. Generally in clothes,

T-119/03 & T-171/03, NL, EU:T:2004:293, § 50). The same is true of the related

services, which have the purpose of selling those goods. As the distinctive element of

the contested sign is a rather short word, ‘OZZI’, the considerable visual differences

between the signs caused by the striking nature of the letters ‘ZZ’ in this word and the

ending, ‘FY’, of the earlier mark, as well as by the dominant and visually eye-catching