Trade marks and foreign languages: take care not to attribute to consumers a level of linguistic knowledge that they do not necessarily possess
[05/11/2026]
In a judgment of 4 November 2026 (T-119/25), the General Court of the European Union provides a further illustration of the decisive importance of the perception of the sign by the relevant public in assessing the similarity between trade marks.
The dispute concerned, in particular, the earlier Spanish trade marks “
One of the most interesting aspects of the decision concerns the Spanish public’s understanding of the French terms ‘le sac’, the relevant public given the nature of the earlier trade marks registered in Spain.
The General Court reiterates a fundamental principle: knowledge of a foreign language cannot, as a general rule, be presumed. Where the language of the sign is not the native language of the relevant public, its understanding must be demonstrated, unless sufficient knowledge of that language constitutes a matter of common knowledge. However, according to the General Court, sufficient knowledge of French amongst the Spanish public does not constitute such a matter of common knowledge.
Nor is it sufficient that the Spanish word ‘saco’ bears a resemblance to the French word ‘sac’ (meaning bag). For a significant proportion of the Spanish public, the association with ‘le sac’ is not immediate. Similarly, the fact that some members of the public know French, or that Spanish tourists travel to France, does not establish that the section of the public which does not understand this expression is negligible.
This perception has very concrete consequences for the comparison: ‘le sac’ / ‘le sac’ retains a distinctive character for that section of the Spanish public which does not understand its meaning. The Court thus confirms a moderate degree of visual similarity between the signs and an identity or very strong phonetic similarity, whilst the conceptual difference arising from ‘outlet’ – a non-distinctive element – plays only a very limited role.
👉 This practical lesson is important for trade mark filing and defence strategies in Europe: the meaning of a term may seem obvious to its applicant but not to the relevant public. The comparison must always be made from the practical perspective of that public, territory by territory, and not from that of the trade mark proprietor.