A recent judgment of the General Court of the European Union (11 February 2026) provides a timely reminder of a recurring issue in EU trade mark practice: where, in a composite word mark, does meaningful differentiation actually occur?

The decision in Nutris v EUIPO concerned a likelihood-of-confusion assessment between a figurative mark, ProbioDefend, and the earlier word mark DEFENDYL, for similar goods (nutritional supplements) in Class 5.

The Court upheld the refusal under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, confirming the position taken by the EUIPO Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. In doing so, it reinforced a consistent line of case law on overall impression, dominant elements and the limited distancing effect of prefixes and suffixes where two marks share a perceptual core.

The trade mark comparison exercise in Nutris

The Court carried out a standard global assessment, considering visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity, the nature of the goods and the perception of the relevant public.

Two aspects of the reasoning are particularly instructive.

First, the element “Defend” was treated as having at least average inherent distinctiveness for a significant part of the relevant public, particularly in non-English-speaking markets where it did not convey a directly descriptive meaning in relation to the goods.

Secondly, the structural differences relied upon by the applicant — notably the prefix “Probio-” and the suffix “-yl” — were not sufficient to alter the overall impression created by the marks. While both elements were acknowledged and examined, neither displaced the perceptual weight of the shared core.

The Court therefore found a likelihood of confusion, even though the relevant public included healthcare professionals with a relatively high level of attention.

Prefixes and suffixes in earlier EU case law

The reasoning in this Nutris case aligns with a broader pattern in EU jurisprudence. Differentiation is not assessed mechanically by identifying different beginnings or endings, but by examining whether the later sign is clearly differentiated in the consumer’s perception.

Earlier disputes illustrate this approach. In cases such as VAGISIL v VAGISAN and ECOVER v ECOVIE, reliance on prefix or suffix differences proved insufficient once the overall phonetic and structural resemblance of the signs was considered. The shared elements in those marks continued to shape consumer perception despite the presence of additional matter.

These decisions do not suggest that prefixes or suffixes are irrelevant. Rather, they show that structural additions must meaningfully alter the perceptual impact of the sign. Where the shared element anchors the mark, variation at either end may have a limited distancing effect.

Dominant element: why “Defend” mattered

A central feature of the judgment is the treatment of “Defend” as the perceptual anchor of both signs.

Several factors explain this outcome. The shared element formed the structural core of the marks, creating phonetic continuity and a similar rhythm. It also carried a protective or defensive connotation that aligned with the nature of the goods. In practice, this meant that consumer recollection was likely to gravitate toward the shared component rather than the additional prefix or suffix.

The prefix “Probio-” and the suffix “-yl” were not disregarded, but they did not fundamentally alter the perceptual centre of gravity. This reflects a long-standing principle in EU trade mark law: marks are assessed as a whole, but certain elements may nonetheless dominate consumer perception and memory.

Linguistic perception and distinctiveness

The case also highlights the territorial nature of distinctiveness within the EU system. A term that appears descriptive or suggestive to English-speaking consumers may function differently for non-English-speaking audiences. In those contexts, the word may operate primarily as a distinctive sequence of letters rather than a descriptive reference.

This is consistent with established EU trade mark principles. Distinctiveness is assessed in relation to the linguistic perception of the relevant public across the Union. The outcome in Nutris illustrates how that principle can influence the weight attributed to a shared element in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

For brand owners operating across multiple EU markets, linguistic nuance may shape perception, but it rarely displaces the central importance of overall impression.

Where differentiation is, and is not, found

Taken together, Nutris and earlier case law suggest a practical framework for assessing composite word marks.

Differentiation is more likely where:

  • the additional element introduces a clear conceptual shift;
  • phonetic structure changes materially;
  • the shared element is genuinely subordinate in perception;
  • the visual structure diverges in a meaningful way.

Differentiation is less likely where:

  • the shared element forms the perceptual core of both signs;
  • added matter is descriptive, technical or commonly used in the sector;
  • phonetic rhythm remains closely aligned;
  • the later sign appears to build upon the earlier mark’s foundation.

This is not a rigid formula, but it reflects how the global assessment is applied in practice.

Strategic implications for trade mark applicants

From a clearance and brand-development perspective, the decision underscores several familiar yet important points.

Arguments that a shared element is “weak” will not, on their own, neutralise similarity if that element structures the overall impression of the mark. Technical prefixes or suffixes, particularly those with descriptive or sectoral associations, may contribute less to differentiation than anticipated. Phonetic and conceptual distance often carry greater weight than structural variation at the beginning or end of a word.

Early assessment of shared roots, stress patterns and linguistic perception across EU markets remains critical. In practice, the risk analysis should focus less on whether a mark contains different components, and more on whether those differences genuinely reshape consumer perception.

Conclusion

The significance of Nutris v EUIPO lies in its reinforcement of a consistent principle: differentiation in EU trade marks is rarely achieved through structural variation alone.

Prefixes and suffixes can, in the right circumstances, distinguish marks. But where two signs share a perceptual core, particularly one that carries phonetic and conceptual weight, the global assessment will often be influenced most by that shared element.

For practitioners and brand owners alike, the lesson is practical. The key question is not whether a later mark appears different on paper, but whether it creates a genuinely different overall impression in the mind of the relevant consumer. Where that impression remains anchored in a shared core element, overcoming an opposition under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR will be difficult.

In practice, the safest time to address similarity risk is before filing. A carefully structured pre-filing review, focused on dominant elements and perception, can make the difference between a smooth registration and potential opposition.