The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) examined a trademark opposition involving BDO and B BPO ACCOUNTING. The Office found that the marks were not sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion.
IP Consulting Represents BPO Bulgaria Before EUIPO
IP Consulting Ltd. represented BPO Bulgaria EOOD in opposition proceedings before the EUIPO.
The dispute concerned the Bulgarian company’s European Union trademark application No. 18 790 922 – B BPO ACCOUNTING (figurative mark).
Stichting BDO, an international network providing financial consultancy and accounting services, filed the opposition.
The company relied on its earlier European Union word mark BDO, registered under No. 2 419 778.
Legal Grounds for the Trademark Opposition
Stichting BDO based its opposition on Article 8(1)(b) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR).
This provision allows owners of earlier trademarks to oppose later applications when there is a likelihood of confusion.
Therefore, the EUIPO Opposition Division examined the similarities between the two marks.
EUIPO Finds Low Visual and Phonetic Similarity
The EUIPO found only a low degree of visual and phonetic similarity between BDO and B BPO ACCOUNTING.
Both marks contain the letters B and O. However, their middle letters differ:
- BDO contains the letter D.
- BPO contains the letter P.
This difference is particularly important because the word elements are short.
Furthermore, the contested mark includes the word ACCOUNTING and an additional figurative element.
These features further distinguish the trademarks in appearance and pronunciation.
Conceptual Differences Between the Trademarks
The EUIPO also examined the conceptual similarity between the signs.
Consumers who understand the English word ACCOUNTING may associate the contested mark with accounting services.
Although this term lacks distinctiveness for the relevant services, it still contributes to the overall comparison.
As a result, the EUIPO considered the conceptual similarity between the marks limited.
EUIPO Decision: No Likelihood of Confusion
After examining the signs, the EUIPO concluded that their similarities were insufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.
The Office identified:
- Low visual similarity between the marks.
- Low phonetic similarity due to their different letters and additional elements.
- Limited conceptual similarity between the signs.
Consequently, the EUIPO did not consider BDO and B BPO ACCOUNTING confusingly similar.
What Does This Decision Mean for Trademark Protection?
This case highlights the importance of assessing trademarks as a whole.
Even when two marks share certain letters, differences in their structure, pronunciation, and additional elements can influence the outcome of opposition proceedings.
The BDO vs. B BPO ACCOUNTING case demonstrates how relatively small differences between trademarks may play an important role in assessing the likelihood of confusion.