Is C&M confusingly similar to C&A?

• The General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between C&M and the earlier mark C&A in Class 25

• The court found that the signs were “similar in two thirds of their length” and that they had the same overall structure and standard stylisation

• It dismissed the argument that the decision was tantamount to granting the opponent a monopoly over the sign ‘C&’

‍

Whether C&M is confusingly similar to C&A was the question for the General Court to consider in its judgment of 2 July 2025 in Case T‑380/24.

‍

Background

In 2020 Australian company Camilla and Marc Operations Pty designated the European Union in its international registration of the mark shown below:

Protection was sought for goods in Classes 18 (eg, leather goods) and 25 (eg, clothing). C&A AG (Switzerland) filed an opposition based on its earlier word mark C&A, also registered for goods in Classes 18 and 25. C&A filed documentation to prove use of its earlier mark, which was found to have been put to genuine use only for “clothing”. The EUIPO rejected the opposition.

‍

C&A appealed. The Board of Appeal of the EUIPO assessed the likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and found that there was a likelihood of confusion in respect of goods in Class 25. Therefore, the opposition was upheld in Class 25.

‍

The case before the court

Camilla and Marc Operations brought the matter before the General Court, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b), claiming that the Board of Appeal had failed to take into consideration all the relevant factors and characteristics specific to the case. Moreover, the company argued that the board’s decision was tantamount to granting C&A a monopoly over the sign ‘C&’.

‍
As the relevant goods in Class 25 were found to be identical or similar, the question of similarity between the marks was the main issue. Camilla and Marc Operations argued that the normal rule that consumers tend to focus on the beginning of a sign did not apply for short signs, as the consumer would have no difficulty in perceiving the sign as a whole and was likely to perceive more clearly what differentiated short signs. Moreover, the fact that the middle character was an ampersand would indicate that the two letters were of equal importance.

‍
Unpersuaded by these arguments, the court stated that it is only where the differences between the signs can lead to different overall impressions that the similarity between them is appreciably reduced. Pointing out that the signs at issue were similar in two thirds of their length, and that they had the same overall structure and standard stylisation, the court found that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards goods that were identical with, or similar to, clothing in Class 25.

‍

Unfair monopoly over ‘C&’?

The argumentation submitted by Camilla and Marc Operations about an unfair monopoly over ‘C&’, especially in the fashion industry, where it was common to use such sign structures, was unsuccessful.

The court confirmed the board’s finding that the decision was not likely to grant C&A an unfair monopoly over the element ‘C&’, and pointed out that the decision only concerned the likelihood of confusion between the marks ‘C&A’ and ‘C&M’ in relation to certain types of goods, also taking into account the high degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark C&A.

‍

Comment

This judgment can be seen as an example of the challenges arising when considering short trademarks. Arguably, the marks C&M and C&A appear as initials of two names, linked by an ampersand. The applicant’s argumentation that consumers would understand that the signs at issue related to different names does not appear to be without merit.

According to case law from the General Court, consumers are more likely to distinguish short signs and the difference in one letter may be sufficient to exclude a likelihood of confusion. In this case, where each mark contained only two letters combined by an ampersand, the statement that the marks were “similar in two thirds of their length” may not quite encompass the construction of marks with an ampersand. Moreover, the letters ‘A’ and ‘M’ do not appear to be similar.

‍

‍

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in July 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com