• precious metals and their alloys; jewellery, costume jewellery, precious stones; clocks, watches and chronometric instruments (14)
  • printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery (16)
  • inter alia goods of leather and imitations of leather (18)
  • clothing, headgear, footwear (25)


  • perfumery and beauty products (3)


The GC upheld the BoA's decision that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks pursuant to Art 8(1)(b).

The BoA did not err by comparing the earlier mark with the mark applied for as a whole rather than splitting it up into two separate marks to be compared each separately. Furthermore no element of the mark applied for was considered negligible.

The BoA correctly found that the marks were phonetically and conceptually similar to a certain degree, even if only weakly, due to the presence of the word element 'joy' in the mark applied for. The fact that the BoA carried out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion for the sake of completeness rather than as a principal concern was irrelevant.

The submission that the BoA did not sufficiently take into account the enhanced distinctive character, acquired through use, of the earlier mark was rejected as unfounded.

Despite the identity of the goods in question, there was no likelihood of confusion given the weak similarity between the marks which produced a significantly different overall impression in the minds of the relevant public.