Basic protection: permanent & free.Activate free basic protection now
Trademark knowledge · Case study

ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE v ABAC: EU Court Confirms Likelihood of Confusion

The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Abacco's GmbH against a decision of EUIPO. The international registration of the figurative mark ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE for food and drink services remains refused due to a likelihood of confusion with the earlier Spanish word mark ABAC.

What was the case about?

Abacco's GmbH (Germany) sought to extend its international registration of the figurative mark ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE to the EU for Class 43 services (food and drink and temporary accommodation). The Spanish company Restaurant Abac, SL filed an opposition based on its earlier Spanish word mark ABAC, also registered for food and drink and accommodation services. It claimed a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation. EUIPO refused the mark; the Board of Appeal upheld that refusal. Abacco's GmbH then brought an action before the General Court of the European Union.

The Court dismissed the action. It confirmed that the services are identical, that the signs are visually similar to an average degree and phonetically similar to at least an above-average degree, and that the earlier mark had acquired enhanced distinctiveness through use. This gives rise to a likelihood of confusion. The Court also clarified that it has no jurisdiction to order EUIPO to register the mark. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, as no hearing was held.

The outcome

Action dismissed: ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE remains blocked due to likelihood of confusion with ABAC

The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Abacco's GmbH. The figurative mark ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE cannot be registered as an EU trade mark for food and drink and accommodation services, due to a likelihood of confusion with the earlier Spanish word mark ABAC. Each party bears its own costs.

What you can learn from this

For Swiss SMEs, this case shows the importance of thorough trademark research before filing. Anyone choosing a mark with a dominant word element like "ABACCO'S" must check whether similar earlier marks exist in the target market. Even if the signs appear visually different, phonetic similarity can be enough to create a likelihood of confusion – especially where the services are identical and the earlier mark is strengthened by use. The barriers to protection must be taken seriously: a refusal by EUIPO or a court means the mark cannot be enforced in the relevant territory.

SMEs should actively monitor their mark after registration in order to detect similar applications early and file opposition. In defence, it is worth checking whether the earlier mark is actually used and whether it enjoys enhanced distinctiveness. Conversely, when filing, one should not rely on luck but realistically assess the risk of confusion with existing rights. Early legal clarification can avoid costly opposition and court 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

  1. 07.10.2026 EU Court confirms: ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE cannot be registered as an EU trade mark due to a likelihood of confusion with the earlier ABAC mark. Source
  2. 09.02.2026 On 9 February 2026, action T-86/26 was brought before the General Court of the European Union by Abacco's GmbH against EUIPO concerning the trade mark ABACCO'S STEAKHOUSE. 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 7 October 2026, T-86/26 (Abacco's GmbH v EUIPO).

Read the full judgment

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.