On 25 March 2025, the EUIPO confirmed Christian Dior Couture’s challenge by rejecting the application for CRISPY DYOR in its entirety. The decision was based solely on the similarities between the contested word mark and Dior’s established figurative mark, rather than on any reputation-based arguments.
The contested sign covered jewellery and clothing, which were found to be identical to the goods protected by Dior’s earlier mark. The Office held that DYOR and DIOR would be pronounced identically by part of the relevant public, particularly Spanish speakers, and that the addition of CRISPY did not eliminate the risk of confusion. The earlier mark was considered inherently distinctive, and the phonetic overlap was sufficient to refuse the application outright, following a notably direct and well-reasoned global assessment.
Similarity in Class Coverage
The contested application covered “jewellery” in Class 14 and “clothing” in Class 25. Dior’s earlier mark covers a far broader range of goods within the same classes, including both fine and costume jewellery, horological items, and a comprehensive list of clothing and fashion accessories.
Since the contested goods fell squarely within these categories, the EUIPO concluded that they were identical. This finding was uncontroversial and laid the foundation for a more nuanced analysis of the marks themselves.
Role of the Relevant Public
When assessing the likelihood of confusion, it’s important to consider who the consumers are. In this case, the products are aimed at the general public, but how carefully people pay attention can vary. For clothing, the level of attention is usually average. For jewellery, especially luxury items, consumers tend to be more selective.
Nonetheless, as the Board noted, even sophisticated consumers rely on imperfect recollection. This principle would prove decisive later in the global assessment.
Comparison of the Signs
The comparison between DIOR (figurative mark) and CRISPY DYOR (word mark) reveals how EUIPO decision-making balances visual, aural, and conceptual considerations.
Visually, the signs share the sequence of letters that constitute the earlier mark: “DIOR”, replicated nearly in full as “DYOR” in the contested sign. The only differences were the substitution of Y for I and the addition of the adjective “CRISPY.” While this term added a distinctive initial component, the Office held that such additions do not necessarily eliminate similarity when the contested sign still contains the earlier mark in a recognisable and dominant form.
The earlier mark was considered to possess a standard decorative stylisation, which played only a secondary role. As is common in EUIPO case law, verbal elements typically have more impact than visual style, since consumers tend to refer to marks verbally rather than descriptively.
Aurally, the similarity increased. For Spanish-speaking consumers, DIOR and DYOR would be pronounced identically. The word CRISPY adds a syllable but does not prevent confusion when the core phonetic unit remains largely intact. Indeed, the earlier mark is wholly embedded in the contested sign, which heightened the risk of a mistaken association.
Conceptually, neither sign conveys any inherent meaning for the relevant public under analysis. As a conceptual comparison is not feasible, this aspect does not influence the overall assessment of similarity. Since the marks have been found similar in at least one essential respect, the evaluation of the likelihood of confusion proceeds.
Importance of Distinctiveness
Interestingly, the decision does not rest on any claim of reputation. Although Dior had asserted enhanced distinctiveness through use, the EUIPO did not assess the supporting evidence. It chose instead to evaluate the earlier mark on the basis of its inherent distinctiveness.
Here, the earlier mark was found to have a normal degree of distinctiveness, given that DIOR does not describe or allude to the goods in question. This neutrality became a strength, as it avoided any dilution of protection that might follow from descriptive or weak elements.
Global Assessment of Similarity
The final analysis was guided by the well-established principle of interdependence. Since the goods were identical, even a moderate degree of similarity between the marks could be sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The EUIPO noted that the phonetic overlap, in particular, made confusion likely among at least a part of the relevant public.
This part was identified as the Spanish-speaking consumer base, who would not distinguish between DYOR and DIOR when spoken. Since it is settled law that a likelihood of confusion for even part of the public is enough to reject an application, the outcome followed logically from this premise.
The Office recognised that consumers might perceive CRISPY DYOR as a variant, a diffusion line, or a playful sub-brand linked to DIOR. The existence of the additional word CRISPY did not dispel this risk. In the context of fashion, where sub-branding and co-branding are common, the potential for misapprehension is magnified.
The EUIPO’s Approach to Trademark Protection
This case illustrates the precision with which EUIPO decisions can operate when defending established marks, even without invoking claims of repute. The ruling distils the principles of visual and aural similarity, consumer attention, and imperfect recollection into a coherent outcome.
For brands operating at the intersection of fashion and popular culture, the decision is instructive. Attempting to appropriate the phonetic character of a heritage mark, even under the guise of irony or reinvention, will not be met with leniency when there is a risk of confusion. Dior may evoke elegance and refinement, yet its approach remains unequivocally clear.
Source: