Word mark dispute KROMAT v CROMA
The General Court of the European Union annulled the Board of Appeal decision because it had assessed likelihood of confusion only for the Catalan-speaking public.
What was the case about?
The Spanish company Absara Industrial, SL applied in 2020 to register the EU word mark KROMAT for sanitary and bathroom goods in Class 11. The German company Hansgrohe SE filed an opposition based on the earlier EU word mark CROMA, also for sanitary goods. The Opposition Division upheld the opposition in part. The Board of Appeal confirmed this in part and assessed the likelihood of confusion exclusively from the perspective of the Catalan-speaking public, as the marks were closest in Catalan. It found a likelihood of confusion for the goods identical or highly similar to 'sanitary facilities, namely shower heads, pipe showers'.
Absara Industrial brought an action before the General Court of the European Union, alleging inter alia procedural errors and an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The Court upheld the action and annulled the Board of Appeal's decision. It found that the Board of Appeal had assessed the likelihood of confusion only for the Catalan-speaking public and had not ruled on the other language groups of the EU. The Court was therefore unable to alter the decision itself and referred the case back to the Board of Appeal for a new examination. EUIPO was ordered to pay the costs.
Annulment due to incomplete assessment
The General Court of the European Union annulled the Board of Appeal's decision. The Board had assessed the likelihood of confusion only for the Catalan-speaking public and had not ruled on the other language groups of the EU. The Court was therefore unable to decide the case itself. EUIPO bears the costs.
What you can learn from this
For Swiss SMEs filing an EU word mark or opposing such a mark, this case shows that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must cover the entire relevant public in the EU. Anyone relying on an earlier mark should document the relevant language groups and their understanding of the signs from the outset. If the assessment is limited to a single language group – as here – the decision can be annulled on that ground alone, prolonging the proceedings and generating costs.
When choosing a name, check whether the chosen sign is descriptive in one or more EU languages or similar to an earlier mark. Ongoing monitoring of the relevant registers and the market helps to detect oppositions early. In defence, you should not only contest the similarity of the signs and goods but also raise procedural errors, such as an incomplete assessment of the relevant public. Have the argumentation prepared in a linguistically and legally sound manner before entering opposition or appeal proceedings.
Case ticker
This ticker follows the case automatically: new decisions appear here as soon as they are published in official sources.
Monitored automatically · Status: 23.10.2026
- 16.09.2026 EU General Court annuls Board of Appeal decision in KROMAT/CROMA opposition and refers the case back. Source
- 11.07.2025 Absara Industrial brought an action on 11 July 2025 before the General Court of the European Union against an EUIPO decision in the opposition proceedings with Hansgrohe concerning the KROMAT mark (T… Source
Entries are generated automatically from official sources. Decisions may be appealed and are not necessarily final.
Sources
General Court of the European Union, judgment of 16 September 2026, Case T-467/25 (Absara Industrial, SL v EUIPO).
Is your brand name strong enough?
Activate free basic protection and keep an eye on your trade mark and its environment.
This article was generated automatically from published decisions, is for information purposes and does not constitute legal advice.