EVOLUTION case highlights issues arising from interpretation of Article 8(1)(b)

In International Gaming Projects v EUIPO, the General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION and the earlier word mark EVOLUTION, which both covered goods in Class 28 and services in Class 41. That conclusion could not be called into question by the applicant’s argument that, in the gaming and entertainment sector, consumers instinctively approach the machine they find most attractive, without referring to its name.