In a decision issued on 20 March 2025 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), a dispute between Chanel and the Slovenian company Simb d.o.o., over its “m5” trademark, highlighted the fine line between brand identity and imitation in the beauty industry. The case focused on a figurative trademark applied for by Simb d.o.o., which, in Chanel’s view, came too close to its renowned “N° 5” mark, a symbol that has long represented Chanel’s prestige in the world of perfumery and cosmetics.
A Mark with History
Founded by Gabrielle Coco Chanel in the early twentieth century, Chanel built its reputation on clean lines, understated elegance and bold innovations in both fashion and fragrance. The “N° 5” perfume, launched in 1921, was revolutionary for its time and soon became the most iconic fragrance in history. Its name, simple and enigmatic, reflects Coco Chanel’s personal affinity for the number five and her belief in the power of minimalism.
Over the decades, the “N° 5” designation has grown from a perfume label into a core element of the brand’s identity. It is now inseparably linked with Chanel’s image of timeless luxury and remains one of the most recognisable trademarks in the beauty industry.
The Opposition
In an application filed on 9 May 2023, Simb d.o.o. sought to register a figurative sign known as “m5” in Class 3 for use on various cosmetic and fashion products. On 13 September 2023, Chanel opposed the registration, claiming that the sign bore too close a resemblance to its own “N° 5” trademark, a mark that has been protected in the European Union for decades.
Chanel’s objection was built on several legal grounds: the likelihood of consumer confusion, the risk that M5 would unfairly benefit from Chanel’s reputation, and the assertion that the application was made in bad faith.
To support its case, Chanel submitted extensive evidence demonstrating the strength and history of the “N° 5” mark, which has become synonymous with luxury and heritage. It argued that the core structure of the M5 logo was likely to evoke Chanel in the eyes of consumers, particularly in fast-paced retail environments where decisions are made quickly.
Assessing Similarity
The EUIPO was tasked with determining whether the two marks were too similar from the perspective of the average consumer. Chanel argued that the M5 mark shared more than just a visual resemblance with its own “N° 5” trademark. The claim was that the similarity spanned visual, aural and conceptual dimensions.
Visually
Chanel argued that the public would naturally interpret the figure as the number five, just as it does in “N° 5”. The addition of “N°” in Chanel’s mark, while distinctive, is not essential to convey the meaning, as French usage often omits the abbreviation without changing the intended reference. This suggested that the numeral itself carried the primary communicative weight. The use of a bold, stylised “5” in both signs made the resemblance more than coincidental.
Aurally
Chanel pointed out the phonetic closeness between “M5” and “N° 5”. In spoken form, particularly in informal or hurried commercial contexts, the letters “M” and “N” can easily be confused. Both marks include the same numeral, and the shared presence of “five” creates a risk that listeners may mishear or conflate the two.
Conceptually
Chanel emphasised that “N° 5” is is not just a number. It is a symbol with deep meaning and a long history. The brand has built this mark over decades, and it is strongly linked to luxury and elegance. So when another brand uses a similar format, such as a single letter with the number five, it could easily cause confusion. People might assume there is a connection between the two and see “M5” as a modern version or sub brand of the iconic “N° 5” line.
Together, these visual, aural and conceptual factors create a strong likelihood of association. The overall impression of similarity, even if not every detail is identical, is enough to suggest that M5 may benefit unfairly from the reputation of Chanel’s longstanding mark.
The Board of Appeal’s Findings
The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ultimately upheld Chanel’s opposition. It confirmed that Chanel’s earlier marks enjoy a high degree of recognition, particularly in relation to perfumery, cosmetics and fashion accessories. It accepted that M5’s sign could lead consumers to establish a mental link with Chanel’s “N° 5” mark, even if no confusion arose at the point of sale.
The decision focused on consumer behaviour, noting that most people do not undertake detailed comparisons of trademarks but rather react to the overall look and feel. From this viewpoint, the similarity in the simple, symmetrical design of both marks could readily remind someone of Chanel’s “N° 5” emblem.
The Board also considered Chanel’s claim of bad faith, finding that M5 had not provided a convincing rationale for its design choice and appeared to be aware of Chanel’s established rights. The attempt to register a mark bearing such similarities was seen as a deliberate effort to benefit from Chanel’s long-standing reputation.
Conclusion
This case illustrates the nuanced assessments at the heart of trademark disputes, particularly in industries where design, identity and legacy are intertwined. The presence of visual, aural or conceptual similarity alone may be sufficient to prevent a new registration when the earlier mark is iconic and enjoys broad recognition.
For businesses, this case shows why it’s important to check existing trademarks before creating new ones. Even subtle references to a well-known brand’s language, structure, or tone can lead to legal disputes. In an industry focused on image, the law works to prevent any overlap of established identities.
It also reminds brand owners that a strong, long-standing reputation can serve as a powerful defense, especially when that reputation extends internationally.
Source: