T-HEAD v HEAD: General Court confirms likelihood of confusion
The General Court dismisses the action brought by T-Head (Shanghai) Semiconductor Co. Ltd against the EUIPO decision. The applied-for figurative mark T-HEAD is confusingly similar to the earlier HEAD marks.
What was the case about?
T-Head (Shanghai) Semiconductor Co. Ltd applied to EUIPO to register the figurative mark ‘T-HEAD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41, 42 and 45. Head Technology GmbH filed an opposition based on earlier national word marks HEAD, an earlier national figurative mark and an earlier international registration of the figurative mark HEAD. EUIPO’s Opposition Division and Board of Appeal found a likelihood of confusion. The applicant brought an action before the General Court.
The General Court dismissed the action. It confirmed that the signs were visually similar to an above-average degree, phonetically similar to at least an average degree and conceptually identical. The earlier marks had average inherent distinctive character. A low degree of similarity of the Class 41 services could be offset by the high degree of similarity of the signs. There was therefore a likelihood of confusion. The action was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs.
Action dismissed: T-HEAD is confusingly similar to HEAD
The General Court upholds EUIPO’s decision that there is a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for figurative mark T-HEAD and the earlier HEAD marks. T-Head (Shanghai) Semiconductor Co. Ltd’s action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
What you can learn from this
For Swiss SMEs, this case shows the importance of a thorough trade mark search before filing. Even visual and phonetic similarity to a known mark can create a likelihood of confusion, even if the goods and services are only partly similar. Before filing, consider distancing measures, such as combining the mark with a distinctive element or changing its graphic presentation.
Ongoing monitoring of your own mark is equally important. Holders of earlier rights should observe opposition deadlines and act against similar applications. In defence, it is worth examining whether the similarity of the signs is actually sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion. This decision confirms that a high degree of similarity between the signs can offset a low degree of similarity between the goods or services.
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
- 30.09.2026 General Court dismisses action against EUIPO decision: T-HEAD is confusingly similar to the earlier HEAD marks. Source
- 18.07.2025 On 18 July 2025, T-Head (Shanghai) Semiconductor brought action T-477/25 before the General Court of the European Union against EUIPO in the trade mark dispute with Head Technology (T-HEAD). 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 30 September 2026, T-477/25.
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.