The Trade Marks Choo And Chhu - Here's Something To Chew On!

In this article, we discuss a well-known brand and an alleged copycat competitor.

The facts

The UK luxury goods company, J. Choo Limited ("J. Choo"), is the owner of the well-known JIMMY CHOO trade mark. When a certain Xiao Chu of Antwerp applied to register the trade mark CHHU in the EU for jewellery, J. Choo opposed the application. The opposition was based on its earlier trade mark registrations for the trade marks CHOO and JIMMY CHOO covering jewellery and related fashion goods.

The grounds of opposition

Choo raised two grounds of opposition:

• A likelihood of consumer confusion in terms of Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR).
• The second ground deals with companies or individuals that take advantage of well-known trade marks - this ground is set out in Article 8(5) of the EUTMR, and it was subsequently withdrawn.

So, as is often the case, it all came down to one thing – a likelihood of confusion!

The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) – observations and findings

The EUIPO made a number of observations and findings:

• Short trade marks: The trade marks CHOO and CHHU are both short, with each comprising four letters.
• Invented words: Both trade marks are invented words.
• Identical goods: The goods covered by the trade marks are identical.
• Relevant public: The relevant public in an enquiry like this is the general public, although it may in some cases extend to professional consumers who are knowledgeable about the goods in question.
• A likelihood of consumer confusion - visual differences and issues of attentiveness: The EUIPO found that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion – although the office accepted that there was a phonetic similarity between the trade marks CHOO, JIMMY CHOO and CHHU, it took the view that this was outweighed by visual differences between the trade marks, as well as the likely attentiveness on the part of potential consumers who are likely to purchase luxury goods.
• Conceptual similarity: There was no conceptual similarity to assess in this case.
• Luxury goods and prudent buyers: The EUIPO made a point that is often made in cases dealing with luxury goods - buyers of luxury goods such as jewellery tend to be prudent, which means that they will examine the goods very carefully before making a purchase.

Well...that's that you might be thinking! Because the EUIPO seemingly felt that there was much more to be said. So let's move on to the EUIPO's lessons for fashion and jewellery designers:

It's almost as if the EUIPO was minded to provide a masterclass for fashion and jewellery designers who want to protect and develop their trade marks. Here is a summary of what EUIPO had to add:

• Phonetics: A phonetic similarity between trade marks can be significant, although it's not always decisive.
• It's all about visual distinction: Identical pronunciation 'will not establish confusion if consumers primarily perceive the goods visually... for luxury goods visual distinction takes precedence'.
• Short trade marks can 'magnify small differences'.
• More on short trade marks: When a trade mark comprises just a few letters, 'minor variations in structure or rhythm can prevent confusion... the unusual consonant sequence in CHHU proved crucial'.
• Luxury goods: When it comes to luxury goods, 'visual distinctiveness takes precedence'.
• More on luxury goods: Luxury goods 'simply heighten consumer attention'.
• Big spenders are astute: Buyers of 'high-end jewellery or accessories observe details carefully, reducing the likelihood that similar-sounding marks will be confused.'
• When it comes to possible confusion, all relevant factors need to be considered: This would cover the similarity of the goods, the distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark, and the marketing of the goods.
• Distinctiveness: The earlier trade mark in this case has a normal degree of distinctiveness.
• Visual purchases in comfortable environments: Jewellery and luxury accessories are purchased visually rather than orally – consumers like to examine these goods in boutiques, catalogues and online platforms, 'rather than ordering them by name in noisy environments'.

Final words

The EUIPO's decision underscores a pragmatic truth for luxury brands: in markets where goods are selected with care and scrutinised heavily, fine-grained differences in short, invented word marks matter a great deal. Despite phonetic overlap between CHOO and CHHU, the visual divergence was enough to tip the balance away from a likelihood of confusion. For designers and brand owners, the practical takeaway is clear. Build and police trade marks with an eye to visual distinctiveness, particularly where consumers encounter and evaluate the product in calm, image‑led environments such as boutiques and online catalogues.

This is not a free pass for near‑miss branding; rather, it is a reminder to prioritise what the consumer actually sees. In that light, EUIPO's thoroughness is not pedantry but guidance: if you want to avoid costly disputes and keep your brand architecture sound, make the visuals do the heavy lifting and make them unmistakably yours.

*Reviewed by Ilse du Plessis, Executive in ENS’ Intellectual Property Department

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.