Apple and Pear are not two brands that can be confused with one another.
The General Court of the European Union 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 (depicted below) are not likely to be confused with one another.
The case stems from the opposition filed by Apple against the application for registration of the European figurative trademark “Pear,” filed by Pear Technologies Ltd. After the opposition was upheld, Pear Technologies Ltd. filed an appeal with the EUIPO, which, however, upheld the original decision. Consequently, Pear Technologies challenged the decision before the General Court of the EU, which found no similarity between the two marks, comparing them both visually and conceptually.
The EUIPO Board of Appeal had initially found a slight degree of similarity between the two signs, as both depicted rounded outlines of a fruit with the corresponding stem and leaf in the same position; however, the General Court subsequently reached a different conclusion.
The judge noted that the two marks are visually very different from one another: they depict two distinct fruits, and one (the Apple trademark) consists of a solid shape, while the other (Pear) is a collection of separate objects; furthermore, the element in the upper right corner represents a leaf in one case (Apple) and a stem in the other (Pear); finally, the word element of the Pear trademark cannot be overlooked, as it is significantly larger than the outline, has a different color, a distinctive font, and is written in capital letters. In conclusion, the judge ruled that the reputation of the earlier mark is irrelevant in assessing similarity, and that the trademarks in question are visually different.
From a conceptual standpoint, the General Court overturned the findings of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, emphasizing that conceptual similarity exists only when two signs evoke images with similar or identical semantic content.
In this case, the EUIPO had initially held that the two trademarks depicted two distinct fruits, but that they were similar in terms of their biological characteristics; however, the court found that the signs in question evoke the idea of a specific fruit, while they refer to the general concept of “fruit” only indirectly.
Second, it reiterated that, in many Member States, apples and pears are used in proverbs as examples of things that are different and not comparable, and any similarity in size, color, or texture (characteristics which, moreover, they share with many other fruits) is in any case an element that can be perceived by the public only upon very detailed examination, not to mention that it is unlikely that the consumer is aware that they come from the same family of plants.
Based on these considerations, therefore, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, acknowledging the potential influence exerted by the reputation of the earlier trademark.