Likelihood of Confusion in EU Trade Mark Law: The Irrelevance of Mandatory Labelling in DALL / DALLI
The General Court’s judgment in DALL / DALLI (T‑515/24), rendered on 26 November 2025, represents a significant clarification in the jurisprudence concerning the assessment of likelihood of confusion under European Union trade mark law, particularly regarding the interplay between mandatory labelling requirements and the evaluation of similarity between goods. This decision confirms the refusal of the contested European Union trade mark (EUTM) application for the sign DALL in Class 3, encompassing cleaning and cosmetic preparations, on the grounds that it is liable to create confusion with the earlier mark DALLI.
In its reasoning, the General Court provides a detailed exposition of the principles governing the assessment of likelihood of confusion, reinforcing that regulatory requirements concerning the labelling of goods, including origin, cannot displace the fundamental function of a trade mark in indicating commercial origin. The case also illuminates the methodology for determining the relevant public and assessing the similarity of goods, with particular attention to cross-border perceptions within the European Union.
The proceedings reveal that the applicant contested the refusal on multiple grounds, notably arguing that mandatory labelling obligations under EU law concerning the geographic origin of the products, here Greece for the contested sign and Germany for the earlier mark, would enable consumers to differentiate the goods and therefore preclude confusion. The BoA, whose decision the GC largely confirmed, had previously rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the assessment of similarity must focus on the goods as defined in the trade mark specifications rather than on the specific conditions of marketing.
The GC reaffirmed that the relevant public includes both the general consumer and professionals, with the assessment conducted from the perspective of the non-German-speaking segment of the EU public. In this context, the Court recalled the established principle that the perception of the average consumer depends on the nature of the goods: for everyday consumer products such as detergents and cosmetic preparations, the level of attention is normal. This level of attention, while sufficient to recognize minor differences in highly distinctive marks, does not mitigate the potential for confusion where marks are short and visually and phonetically similar.
With respect to the goods themselves, the Court confirmed that they are identical or at least highly similar. In rejecting the argument based on differing geographic origin, the GC clarified that the concept of “origin” relevant to the similarity assessment refers not to the country of manufacture as indicated on the label, but to the industrial sector or type of undertaking that typically produces the goods. Thus, even when EU legislation requires detailed origin labelling, such requirements do not alter the inherent similarity between the goods from the perspective of the average consumer. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the evaluation must be made on the basis of the goods as listed in the trade mark application rather than on the products as they are actually marketed, underscoring that labelling obligations do not substitute for the trade mark’s primary function of identifying commercial origin.
The Court’s comparison of the signs highlighted that both DALL and DALLI are short marks, which inherently increases the likelihood of confusion, as short marks leave less material for consumers to distinguish between them. The GC found the signs to be visually and phonetically similar to an average degree, concluding that the combination of identical or highly similar goods and the shortness of the marks creates a significant likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
A particularly instructive element of the judgment is the Court’s treatment of mandatory labelling rules. The GC explicitly held that the existence of EU legal obligations to indicate the geographic origin of products—whether detergents or cosmetic preparations—does not diminish the likelihood of confusion. While such labelling provides consumers with additional information about the origin of goods, it cannot replace the essential role of the trade mark in indicating the commercial origin. In other words, consumers continue to rely primarily on trade marks to identify the source of goods, and labelling serves only as ancillary information.
The implications of this decision are multifaceted. First, it reinforces the established principle that the assessment of similarity and likelihood of confusion must be conducted based on the goods as defined in the trade mark specification, independent of marketing or labelling practices. Second, it clarifies that mandatory regulatory labelling, including geographic origin marking, does not mitigate the risk of confusion and cannot be relied upon to distinguish otherwise similar marks. Third, the case underscores the need to carefully consider both general consumers and professionals as part of the relevant public, particularly in multilingual and cross-border EU markets. Finally, the judgment illustrates the heightened risk of confusion inherent in short marks, where limited distinctive elements amplify the potential for perceptual overlap.
DALL / DALLI reaffirms fundamental principles of EU trade mark law while providing detailed guidance on the irrelevance of mandatory labelling in LOC assessments. For practitioners, brand owners, and IP professionals, the case highlights that trade mark similarity and likelihood of confusion remain anchored in the inherent characteristics of the marks and goods themselves. Regulatory requirements regarding packaging or labelling, even when comprehensive, cannot supplant the core function of a trade mark as the primary indicator of commercial origin. This decision serves as a clear precedent for assessing cross-border consumer perception and the interplay between trade mark protection and regulatory compliance in the EU.
26/11/2025, T‑515/24, DALL / DALLI, EU:T:2025:1064
Leave us a message:
