Home » Trade Marks » Starbucks Success

Starbucks Success

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

starbucks-1972319_1920This post provides a review of a recent case, T-398/16 -Starbucks Corp v EUIPO and Hasmik Nersesyan.


Key points

• A global assessment involves weighing up the similarity of the marks and the goods or services
• The threshold for similarity is low

Here, the General Court (GC) of the EU ruled in favour of Starbucks, which argued that a “coffee rocks” logo for another coffee shop was too similar to its own.

Coffee rocks


The trade mark application at issue (EU011881943) was filed by Ms Nersesyan in 2013 for a circular, black-and-white design featuring the words “coffee rocks” in relation to “services for providing drinks” in class 43. The application was published in November 2013, and Starbucks filed a notice of opposition in February 2014.

In 2015, the EUIPO Opposition Division rejected the opposition in its entirety. The appeal was then dismissed in 2016 by the Fourth Board of Appeal, which found that the marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually dissimilar because they only had descriptive or non-distinctive elements in common, namely the word COFFEE, the black circular device with white elements and the font used. As the distinctive features were found to be dissimilar, the Board of Appeal (BoA) did not conduct any assessment into likelihood of confusion between the marks.

GC determination

In January 2018, the GC sided with Starbucks, noting that a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion must be carried out if there are some similarities between the marks, because the average consumer normally perceives the mark as a whole and does not engage in an analysis of its various visual, phonetic and conceptual details. For example, it could not be ruled out that the relevant public would associate the marks with the concept of a coffee house. Therefore, even though the dominant components STARBUCKS and COFFEE ROCKS are different, the other elements of the marks are not negligible when considering the overall impression.

The GC stressed that a global assessment with regards to likelihood of confusion involves interdependence of the similarity of the trade marks and the goods or services. Therefore, a low degree of similarity between goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa.

In this case, the GC stated that there were “three sets of visual similarities between the signs at issue”. Namely, the same general appearance made up of: “circular devices consisting of two parts”; the “use of the same colours”; and the “use of the same font for the word elements”. Consequently, the GC ruled that the signs were partially identical with regard to one or more of their relevant aspects. It found that the BoA had erred in ruling out any similarity – even a low degree – between the marks, and was wrong not to carry out an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.


This case highlights the importance of conducting a global assessment when considering likelihood of confusion and confirms that the threshold for similarity is low, because minor adjustments to the figurative elements of a famous trade mark are sufficient to result in a finding of confusion or dilution.

Amelia Skelding 20 June 2018

This article was first published in the CITMA Review May 2018

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: