Apple and Pear are not two brands that can be confused with one another.
The EU General Court recently ruled on the issue of visual and conceptual similarity between trademarks and, overturning the EUIPO's decision on this point, found that the well-known Apple trademark and the Pear trademark (pictured below) are not liable to be confused with each other.
The case stems from Apple's opposition to the application for registration of the European figurative trademark 'Pear' filed by Pear Technologies Ltd. Following the successful opposition, Pear Technologies filed an appeal with the EUIPO, which upheld the initial decision. Pear Technologies subsequently challenged the decision before the General Court, which denied the existence of similarity between the two signs, comparing them both visually and conceptually.
The EUIPO Board of Appeal had initially found a remote degree of similarity between the two signs, as both represented rounded shapes of a fruit with the corresponding stem/leaf in the same position, but the General Court later reached a different conclusion.
The judge observed that the two signs are visually very different: they represent two distinct fruits, one (the Apple trademark) being a solid shape, while the other (Pear) is a set of separate objects. Furthermore, the element in the top right represents a leaf (Apple) in one case, and a stem (Pear) in the other. Finally, the word element of the Pear trademark cannot be overlooked, as it is significantly larger than the shape, has a different color, uses a distinctive font, and is capitalized. In conclusion, the Judge ruled that the reputation of the earlier sign is irrelevant in a judgment of similarity, and that the trademarks in question are visually different.
From a conceptual point of view, the General Court overturned the conclusions of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, underlining that conceptual similarity exists only when two signs evoke images having similar or identical semantic content.
In this case, the EUIPO had initially considered that the two trademarks depicted two distinct fruits that were similar in biological characteristics, but the court held that the signs in question evoked the idea of a specific fruit, while recalling the general concept of “fruit” only indirectly.
Secondly, it reiterated that, in many Member States, apples and pears are used in proverbs as examples of different and non-comparable things, and any similarity in size, colour or consistency (characteristics which, moreover, they share with many other fruits) is in any case an element that can only be perceived by the public in the context of a very detailed analysis, without considering that it is unlikely that the consumer is aware that they come from the same plant family.
On the basis of these considerations, therefore, the EU General Court annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, recognizing the possible influence exerted by the reputation of the earlier trademark.