Am 5. Mai 2026 entschied die Widerspruchsabteilung des EUIPO im Verfahren Opposition No B 3 243 338 über die Anmeldung eines stilisierten Fruchtlogos – und gab Apple größtenteils recht. Die Entscheidung verdeutlicht den Unterschied zwischen klassischer Verwechslungsgefahr und Bekanntheitsschutz nach Art. 8 Abs. 5 UMV.

Apple versus stylized “lemon” – what was it all about?

The subject of the proceedings was the application for registration of a graphic logo by a Chinese company for various goods in Class 9, in particular computer accessories, keyboards, chargers and other electronic products. The contested sign showed a stylized round fruit with a leaf and a recess on the right-hand side. The media sometimes referred to the sign as a “lemon logo”.

Apple filed an opposition against the application, relying on its well-known Apple logo and its considerable reputation within the European Union. The decision itself describes Apple’s sign as a stylized representation of a bitten apple with a separate leaf.

Aktenzeichen: Opposition No B 3 243 338 (EUIPO-Widerspruchsabteilung, Entscheidung vom 5. Mai 2026); EUTM-Anmeldung Nr. 19 166 965.

No classic risk of confusion

First of all, it is noteworthy that the EUIPO did not assume a classic likelihood of confusion. The Opposition Division expressly stated that the signs were only visually similar to a very limited extent.

Although both logos had:

• an approximately round basic shape
• one leaf in the upper area
• and a recess on the right-hand side

At the same time, however, the EUIPO saw considerable differences in the shape, design and internal structure of the contested sign. The contested logo was perceived more as an “unidentifiable round fruit” with additional graphic elements.

The EUIPO also denied conceptual similarity. The protection of a well-known figurative mark does not extend across the board to all representations of the same generic category – in this case not to “every fruit with a leaf”.

For the classic test according to Art. 8 para. 1 lit. b UMV the very low degree of similarity between the signs was therefore ultimately not sufficient, despite some similar goods.

Why Apple still won

In the end, the decisive factor was the so-called protection of reputation according to Art. 8 para. 5 UMV . In the case of trademarks with a considerable reputation, this already applies if the younger sign is mentally linked to the well-known trademark (“link” or mental connection).

The EUIPO had no doubt that the Apple logo is well known within the European Union. The decision refers in detail to:

• Decades of market presence
• Enormous sales
• worldwide brand rankings
• intensive advertising
• High market shares
• as well as the extraordinary popularity of iPhone, iPad, Mac and other accessories

According to the Opposition Division, the slight visual similarity was therefore sufficient to evoke a mental association with the Apple logo in electronic products. Precisely because Apple has an exceptionally strong brand position in the technology sector, consumers could mentally associate the younger sign with Apple.

“Free Riding”: Riding along on the well-known brand

Particularly relevant is the reasoning regarding the so-called “unfair advantage” or “free-riding”. The EUIPO assumed that the younger sign would benefit from the appeal of the well-known Apple trademark.

The decision emphasizes that Apple stands for innovation, design, user-friendliness and technological quality. These positive ideas could be transferred to products under the younger sign – without the applicant itself having made comparable investments in brand development and awareness.

This is precisely the core of the protection of reputation: Not every use of similar signs leads to a likelihood of confusion. However, well-known trademarks are granted additional protection against the exploitation of their reputation.

Interesting: Solar panels were allowed to keep the brand

However, the decision was only partially in Apple’s favor. The application for “solar panels for the production of electricity” remained in place.

In this respect, the EUIPO did not see a sufficient connection to the goods for which Apple’s trademark is known. In the Opposition Division’s view, solar panels belonged to a different market segment, were aimed at a different public and would not typically be expected to have the same commercial origin.

This part of the decision in particular shows that even well-known trademarks do not enjoy unlimited protection. The decisive factor is always the specific relation between the goods and the industry.

Practical significance for trademark applications

The decision clarifies several important points for trademark practice:

Well-known trademarks enjoy considerably extended protection

In the case of well-known trademarks, even a comparatively low degree of similarity between the signs is sufficient for consumers to make a mental association.

Likelihood of confusion and protection of reputation must be strictly separated

The EUIPO expressly did not assume a classic likelihood of confusion – but nevertheless allowed the opposition to largely prevail.

Industry proximity remains crucial

Even an extremely well-known brand such as Apple does not receive protection against all classes of goods. The economic proximity of the products remains a key factor.

Logos with typical structural features can become problematic

Even if individual design elements – such as a leaf, fruit shape or recess – appear banal on their own, their combination in the overall picture can become relevant under trademark law.

Classification

The decision is part of a long series of proceedings in which Apple has consistently defended its trademarks. What is interesting here, however, is not so much the economic clout of the company as the EUIPO’s reasoning under trademark law.

The Opposition Division makes it very clear that the protection of reputation is not “protection against confusion in disguise”. The decisive factor was not that consumers would immediately confuse the signs, but that the younger mark could benefit from the image and reputation of the well-known Apple mark.

For companies, this means that anyone registering new trademarks – especially in the tech or electronics sector – should not only look for identical or highly similar signs. Even a distant design similarity can be problematic, especially in the case of well-known trademarks.

We also discussed how the relationship between likelihood of confusion and protection against reputation works in practice in the Chiquita case: Trademark law and Chiquita bananas: what companies can learn from it – another textbook example of how to deal with well-known trademarks at European level.

If you want to know whether your own brand is exposed to similar risks: our brand monitoring detects collisions at an early stage and gives you time to react.