By Emilia López Camba, Intellectual Property Lawyer in the PONS IP Litigation Department.
The evocative or suggestive nature of a graphic representation is not sufficient, on its own, to determine the incompatibility between two signs. This is, broadly speaking, the central idea underlying the recent judgment handed down by the European Union General Court in Case T-53/24, published on 7 May 2025.
The case pitted German toy company Schmidt Spiele GmbH against renowned Spanish athlete David de Gea, currently goalkeeper for ACF Fiorentina. It all began in September 2021, when the goalkeeper applied to register an EU trademark consisting of his initials, DDG, in a distinctive, modern font, to cover goods such as video games and sporting articles.
Schmidt Spiele, owner of an earlier trademark with the name DOG and a thick-lined design in capital letters on a dark background with a white outline, believed that there was a likelihood of visual confusion, as both signs could be interpreted by consumers as equivalent or even interchangeable.
However, both the EUIPO and now the General Court have rejected these allegations. In the opinion of the European institutions, the visual similarity between the two signs is not decisive, since it cannot be assumed that the average consumer automatically perceives the word “DOG” in De Gea’s trademark. Furthermore, the Court emphasises that the target public for these goods (games, sporting articles, etc.) does not act impulsively, but with an average level of attention, which contributes to clearly distinguishing between the two trademarks, especially when the expectation of purchase is linked to the figure of the athlete.
The judgment recalls that a general rule cannot be constructed on the basis of a mere partial visual evocation. The assessment of the likelihood of confusion requires an evaluation of all the distinctive features, the context of use and the level of attention of the consumer. In this case, even those who perceive a certain visual similarity will not necessarily be misled.
From a legal and strategic perspective, this case highlights an important reality: when offices and courts do not recognise the likelihood of confusion in trademark registries, other more effective means of protection can be activated. These include reputation, market establishment, distinctiveness acquired through use, or a proper communication strategy that reinforces the positioning of the trademark. All of this not only increases its asset value but also strengthens its protection against third parties.
Ultimately, a brand is not limited to its form: it lives in its context, in its use and in the minds of those who recognise it. And that is where its true legal strength lies.
You can read the full text of the judgment here: Judgment T-53/24 – CURIA
