Trademark Case Law: “IKEA” and “ÍHEA”

The overall impression of the visual, aural, or conceptual similarity between the marks must be based on their distinctive and dominant components. The contested sign is a figurative mark with the word “IHEA” in standard upper-case letters, accented on the “Í,” and includes a stylized leaf or flame design.

Both “IKEA” and “ÍHEA” are perceived as meaningless by the relevant public, possessing a normal level of inherent distinctiveness. The figurative element, seen as either a leaf or flame, is weak for the relevant goods as it may refer to their natural properties. No component of the contested sign is more dominant than others, and no elements stand out due to position, size, dimensions, or color.

Visually and aurally, the signs share similarities in the letters “I*EA” and their sounds, differing only in the second letters “K” versus “H” and the leaf/flame design, which is weak for the relevant goods. The short length of the signs makes differences more noticeable. Thus, the signs are visually similar to a low degree and aurally to a below-average degree.

Conceptually, the public will understand the figurative element of the contested sign, while the earlier mark has no meaning, making the signs conceptually dissimilar. This difference is limited in the overall assessment due to the weak figurative element.

The earlier mark’s reputation for some goods in Class 20 is assumed. Establishing a risk of injury requires demonstrating that the public will link the signs, a requirement confirmed by several judgments. Relevant factors include the degree of similarity, the nature of goods and services, the earlier mark’s reputation, and the likelihood of confusion.

The degree of similarity is low visually, below-average aurally, and not similar conceptually. The earlier mark has normal inherent distinctiveness and outstanding recognition in Sweden for furniture and related goods in Class 20. The contested goods in Class 11 include heating apparatus for electronic cigarettes, cooling installations for tobacco, and tobacco roasters, targeting both general and professional audiences.

These goods belong to different market sectors, with distinct purposes and consumer bases, sold through separate outlets and trade channels. This divergence challenges the plausibility of a link being made between the marks by the consumer. The earlier mark’s reputation and the low degree of similarity make such a link unlikely, which is essential for applying Article 8(5) EUTMR.

Given the remote nature of the goods and different consumer needs, it is improbable that the public will associate the contested sign with the IKEA mark. Even assuming the earlier mark’s reputation in other EU Member States, the economic sectors remain distinct, negating the necessity to examine evidence of reputation beyond Sweden.

Consequently, without addressing the opponent’s arguments on injury, the absence of a link means the opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR is unfounded and must be rejected for all contested goods in Class 11. No risk of injury exists, and the opposition is dismissed entirely under Article 8(5) EUTMR.