According to the General Court, these goods and services may, on the contrary, be regarded as complementary, as publications play an essential role in informing consumers about the benefits of the loyalty programme and often determine its actual use.

The General Court notes, in particular, that loyalty cards may be physical but may also be entirely digital, and that publications enable cardholders or voucher recipients to be informed of the benefits associated with the programme; it adds that these goods and services share a common aim of building customer loyalty and may share the same target audience, the same distribution channels and, in some cases, the same economic origin.

The Court therefore concludes that the EUIPO erred in its assessment of the comparison between these goods and services and partially annuls the contested decision.

A decision which nevertheless gives cause for reflection.

By recognizing the complementary nature of publications (whether printed or electronic) and loyalty cards or voucher-issuing services, the Court adopts a relatively broad approach to the concept of similarity. Admittedly, in the world of loyalty schemes, the information provided to consumers is an essential element of the scheme. However, one might question the limits of such reasoning: if electronic publications are considered complementary simply because they inform consumers about the use or benefits of a product or service, is there not a risk of ending up recognizing a similarity with a very large number of products and services whose use or promotion they accompany?