On July 27 2022, an applicant filed an international trademark application, below, designating the EU for the following goods and services:
Class 9 – downloadable software enabling investment in securities of luxury assets; and
Class 36 – financial and investment services providing fractional ownership in luxury assets.
LVMH Fragrance Brands (the Opponent, or LVMH) filed an opposition at the EUIPO on the basis of its earlier French figurative trademark, below left, commonly referred to the Givenchy 4G logo, for virtual goods and their corresponding retail shop services in class 35 of the Nice Classification, as well as the EU trademark registration, below right, for perfumery and cosmetics goods in class 3. The opposition was based on the EU Trademark Regulation’s (EUTMR’s) Article 8(1)(b) (likelihood of confusion) with regard to the earlier French trademark, and Article 8(5) (reputation of the earlier trademark) with regard to the earlier EU trademark registration.
The Opposition Division upheld the opposition for the goods in class 9 but rejected it for financial services in class 36, as the reputation of the earlier trademark had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
LVMH appealed, limiting the scope of the appeal to the rejection of the opposition under Article 8(5) of the EUTMR in respect of financial and investment services.
Arguments of the parties
On appeal, the Opponent substantially developed its legal reasoning under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of the EUTMR, placing particular emphasis on the relationship between luxury goods and luxury-oriented financial services.
First, regarding the comparison of goods and services, LVMH argued that the Opposition Division had adopted an unduly narrow approach. It submitted that investment services relating to luxury assets cannot be assessed in abstraction from the underlying assets themselves. In particular:
Virtual goods authenticated by NFTs and luxury digital assets may themselves constitute speculative investment objects;
Financial services providing fractional ownership in luxury assets may necessarily encompass such digital assets; and
Specialised financial services and the software enabling blockchain-based transactions may be offered as integrated solutions by the same undertakings.
The Opponent further contended that retail, auction, and sales promotion services for virtual luxury goods in class 35 pursue the same economic objective as investment services in luxury assets; namely, the monetisation and valorisation of high-end assets, whether tangible or intangible.
Secondly, under Article 8(5) of the EUTMR, LVMH submitted that the Givenchy 4G logo enjoys a strong reputation in the EU, or at the very least in France, for perfumery and cosmetics. It argued that the Opposition Division had failed to assess the evidence globally and had disregarded relevant independent sources.
As to the existence of a link, the Opponent stressed that the contested services explicitly refer to “luxury assets” and partnerships with brands. According to LVMH, this semantic and economic proximity inevitably directs the relevant public towards well-known luxury houses, of which Givenchy is a paradigmatic example.
Finally, LVMH argued that the use of a sign highly similar to the iconic 4G device for luxury investment services would enable the international registration (IR) holder to take unfair advantage of the prestige, attractiveness, and aura of exclusivity associated with the earlier trademark, without any due cause.
The defendant did not file any observations at the appeal stage.
The Board of Appeal’s decision
Admissibility of new evidence
In its decision of December 12 2025, the Board of Appeal (the Board) admitted the evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, finding that it supplemented the file in response to the deficiencies identified by the Opposition Division and was prima facie relevant, in line with Article 95(2) of the EUTMR.
Reputation of the earlier mark
The Board concluded that the Givenchy 4G figurative mark enjoys a high degree of reputation, at least in France, for perfumes in class 3. This conclusion was based on long-standing use, extensive advertising, significant sales volumes, third-party recognition, awards, and prior national court decisions, assessed globally.
Recalling settled case law, the Board confirmed that reputation established in a single member state constituting a substantial part of the EU territory is sufficient to satisfy Article 8(5) of the EUTMR.
Similarity of the signs
The Board confirmed a high degree of visual similarity between the signs, with both being composed of four square elements arranged in a symmetrical geometric configuration with internal lines. The minor differences were held insufficient to alter the overall impression.
Existence of a link
The Board placed particular emphasis on the nature of the contested services. It held that financial and investment services explicitly limited to “luxury assets” target a public that is knowledgeable about and sensitive to luxury brands and their reputational value.
The Board considered that consumers willing to invest in luxury assets are likely to associate such services with established luxury houses, whose brand equity directly influences asset value. In this context, the earlier trademark’s reputation extends beyond its registered goods and facilitates the establishment of a mental link.
The notion of “luxury assets” was therefore interpreted broadly, covering assets whose value is intrinsically linked to brand prestige, regardless of their tangible or intangible nature.
Unfair advantage
The Board found a serious risk that the contested trademark would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier trademark, below. The contested sign would benefit from the immediate transfer of the Givenchy brand’s aura of prestige and exclusivity, easing market entry and reducing promotional efforts for the defendant.
In the absence of any due cause put forward by the IR holder, the conditions of Article 8(5) of the EUTMR were fully satisfied.
Key takeaways
For the first time, the reputation of the Givenchy 4G logo, below, has been explicitly recognised. This decision marks a significant step, as the Board expressly acknowledges the independent reputation of the iconic Givenchy logo, at least with regard to the French public.
The EUIPO found luxury as a connecting factor. Indeed, the services expressly linked to “luxury assets” are capable of creating a link with goods of luxury houses, even where the services fall in distant classes such as finance or investment. The concept of “luxury asset” is interpreted broadly and remains open to interpretation. In this regard, we might ask ourselves whether the criteria of luxury outweigh more concrete criteria that are capable of establishing a link between very different goods and services.
The decision also reiterates that reputation established in a member state constituting a substantial part of the EU, such as France, is sufficient to trigger protection under Article 8(5) of the EUTMR throughout the EU.
