Trademark Reputation Prevails Despite Weak Similarity in Netflix v. Weedflix
Article 8(5) EUTMR occupies a distinct place within the EU trade mark system. Unlike the likelihood of confusion ground, it is concerned with the protection of trade marks that have acquired a reputation and with preventing third parties from exploiting that reputation without due cause.
The decision of the EUIPO Opposition Division in Netflix v. Weedflix is a useful point of reference for examining how these principles are applied where the similarity between the signs is limited and the contested goods and services extend beyond the opponent’s core business.
The Function of Article 8(5) EUTMR
The scope of Article 8(5) EUTMR is not confined to situations in which consumers are likely to be misled as to commercial origin. Its purpose is to protect the investment and economic value embodied in a trade mark that is known by a significant part of the relevant public.
For that reason, the provision applies even where the goods and services are dissimilar and the degree of similarity between the signs is modest, provided that the relevant public is likely to establish a mental association between them and that such association gives rise to unfair advantage or detriment.
Reputation and the Standard of Proof
In Netflix v. Weedflix, the existence of reputation within the European Union was central to the outcome of the case. At first instance, the opposition failed because the evidence, although extensive, was considered insufficiently specific as to the extent of recognition of the earlier mark in the EU.
On appeal, additional evidence was admitted on the basis that it supplemented the material already submitted and responded to the deficiencies identified by the Opposition Division. Following remittal, the Opposition Division accepted that the earlier mark enjoyed a high level of recognition in several major Member States, supported by market data, press coverage and independent rankings.
The decision illustrates the practical importance of anchoring reputation evidence in the perception of the relevant EU public, rather than relying primarily on global or extra-EU indicators of fame.
Similarity of the Signs: A Limited but Relevant Factor
The signs were found to be visually and aurally similar to a low degree and conceptually dissimilar. The shared ending was insufficient to outweigh the differences at the beginning of the marks, which generally carry greater weight in the overall impression.
That finding did not, however, preclude the application of Article 8(5). The Opposition Division reiterated that the degree of similarity required under that provision is lower than under Article 8(1)(b), and that even limited similarity may be sufficient where the earlier mark enjoys a strong reputation.
The “Link” Between the Signs and the Relevant Public
The assessment of whether the relevant public is likely to establish a link between the signs was conducted in accordance with the criteria developed by the Court of Justice, including the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation and the nature of the goods and services at issue.
Significantly, the Opposition Division did not restrict its analysis to the opponent’s core streaming services. It accepted that consumers may reasonably expect a globally known entertainment brand to operate in commercially adjacent fields such as merchandising, clothing, online retail, publishing and content-related services.
By contrast, the opposition failed in respect of goods such as safety and signalling devices and filtering materials, where no plausible commercial connection with the opponent’s activities could be established. This distinction underlines the fact-specific nature of the link analysis under Article 8(5).
Unfair Advantage and Economic Benefit
Having found that a link was likely to be established, the Opposition Division examined whether use of the contested mark would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier mark.
It concluded that the earlier mark was associated with a strong and positive image resulting from sustained commercial investment. The use of a similar sign in relation to goods and services perceived as commercially adjacent was considered likely to allow the applicant to benefit from that image without making a comparable investment.
In the absence of any argument of due cause, this potential economic benefit was sufficient to support a finding of unfair advantage, without the need to demonstrate actual harm.
The decision also highlights the importance of procedural strategy in reputation-based oppositions. While the burden of proof lies with the opponent, the applicable procedural framework allows for a degree of flexibility where additional evidence directly addresses shortcomings identified at first instance.
The Netflix v. Weedflix decision confirms the breadth of protection afforded to reputed trade marks under Article 8(5) EUTMR. It shows that even a low degree of similarity between the signs may be sufficient where the earlier mark enjoys a strong reputation and the contested goods and services fall within a commercially plausible area of expansion.
Leave us a message:
