Lux
is not
Luv.
Lux
is not
Luv.
from
When is a single letter enough to distinguish two trademarks? Can a graphic similarity between “v” and “x” lead to the cancellation of a trademark – and what role do associations of meaning such as “luxury” or “lynx” play in this?
LUX vs. LUV
The word mark “Lux” was applied for at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) on October 1, 2020 and registered on October 13, 2020. Following a partial surrender, it claimed protection for bathtubs, shower trays and washbasins made of steel enamel in class 11.
The proprietor of the earlier EU word mark “Luv” (registered on 30.01.2017) filed an opposition against this registration. Her trademark claimed protection for sanitary facilities, washbasins, bathtubs and shower trays, also in class 11.
The Trademark Office for Class 11 of the DPMA upheld the opposition and ordered the cancellation of the trademark “Lux”. The reasoning: With identical goods and average distinctiveness, there was medium similarity at least in terms of typeface. The “arrow-shaped upwardly open design” of the “v” was identical and mirrored downwards in the “x”, so that confusion could not be ruled out on the basis of memory.
The owner of the trademark “Lux” filed an appeal.
The decision of the BPatG
The BPatG upheld the appeal with Decision of 04.02.2026 – Ref. 29 W (pat) 560/22 upheld the cancellation and rejected the opposition. There was no likelihood of confusion between “Lux” and “Luv”.
The Senate first found that the goods are aimed at the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. The court did not accept the appellant’s argument that its goods came from the high-price segment and therefore required increased attention. In opposition proceedings, the focus should be on the registered goods, not on specific sales and distribution modalities. However, in view of the growing importance of the bathroom as a place of well-being and the partly high-priced products, a “slightly increased attention” could be assumed.
In the opinion of the Senate, the comparable goods are largely identical and highly similar. The Senate classified the original distinctiveness of “Luv” as average. Irrespective of whether the public recognizes the nautical term for the “side facing the wind”, it is not descriptive of the sanitary goods. The other meanings cited – the name of a pop band or a colloquial form of “love” – did not lead to a weakness of the mark either.
Character comparison
When comparing the typeface, the court states that the public will notice the different final letters “x” and “v” when reading and will remember them. The visual impression of a word sign is determined not only by its initial letter but also by its final letter. The graphic similarity of the arrow shape of the two letters cited by the trade mark office presupposes an “analytical consideration which the public does not normally undertake”.
In the view of the Senate, the fact that the public goes beyond the mere perception of the individual, deviating letters to examine them for their graphic design and recognizes an upwardly open arrow shape in both presupposes an analytical consideration, which the public does not usually undertake.
From a phonetic point of view, the difference is also sufficient to prevent confusion. While the “sonorous consonant ‘”x” of the younger trademark has a relatively short, hard sound, that of the opposing trademark is significantly longer and softer due to the final “v”.
The conceptual component was particularly important for the judges. The Senate found that the public would immediately think of a meaning for “lux” – be it the Latin word for “light”, the physical unit of measurement for illuminance, the association with “luxury” or the sound of the wild cat “lynx”. Any recognized meaning could prevent interrogation or reading. It is sufficient if only one of the two signs has a clear conceptual content. The Senate could therefore leave open whether “Luv” was also directly recognized as a nautical term.
Conclusion
The decision confirms and substantiates the case law on short signs in trademark law in several respects.
With three-letter trademarks, even small differences can have a disproportionately high impact. Experience has shown that short words are remembered better and more accurately than longer trademark words. Even a difference in just one letter can therefore rule out confusion – provided the other circumstances are in favor of this.
A purely graphical analysis of individual letters is not the benchmark. The Senate did not consider the fact that “v” and “x” both have an arrow-shaped form to be decisive because the average consumer does not carry out such a detailed shape analysis.
Conceptual associations can neutralize phonetic and visual similarities. This already applies if only one of the two signs embodies a conceptual content that is familiar to the public. Trade mark applicants and proprietors should therefore not underestimate the semantic dimension of their signs, as it can make the decisive difference in opposition proceedings.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
