Bulkhead Ltd v EUIPO: General Court upholds WARDOGS trademark refusal

The General Court has dismissed an appeal by Bulkhead Ltd against EUIPO's refusal to register the word mark WARDOGS, finding a likelihood of confusion with Ubisoft Entertainment's earlier registered mark WATCH DOGS. The judgement, delivered on 15 October 2025 in Case T-109/25, provides instructive guidance on the assessment of similarity between composite word marks in the gaming software sector.

Bulkhead Ltd filed an EU trademark application for WARDOGS on 15 June 2022, covering goods and services in Classes 9 and 41, primarily relating to computer game software, video games, and associated entertainment services. Ubisoft Entertainment opposed the application based on its earlier EU word mark WATCH DOGS, registered since 26 April 2013 for similar goods and services.

The Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition, a decision which Bulkhead appealed to the Fourth Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 10 December 2024, prompting Bulkhead to seek judicial review before the General Court.

The Court's analysis

The General Court's assessment centred on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, which precludes registration where there exists a likelihood of confusion arising from similarity between marks and identity or similarity of goods or services. The relevant public comprised both general consumers and Spanish-speaking professionals with average to high attention levels.

Bulkhead did not contest the Board of Appeal's findings on the identity or similarity of the goods and services at issue. The dispute focused instead on the comparative assessment of the marks themselves.

Regarding visual similarity, the Court upheld the Board of Appeal's conclusion of at least average similarity. Whilst acknowledging that the initial elements differed ('war' versus 'watch'), the Court emphasised that both marks shared the initial letters 'wa' and the complete final element 'dogs'. The applicant's argument that consumers pay increased attention to the beginning of marks could not, the Court held, override the principle that marks must be assessed as a whole based on overall impression.

The phonetic comparison similarly revealed at least average similarity. The marks coincided in the pronunciation of their first two letters and final syllable, with differences limited to the middle consonant sounds. The Court rejected Bulkhead's contention that the Board had found the first syllables identical, clarifying that the Board had merely noted an identical initial sound.

On conceptual similarity, the Court found at least a low degree of overlap. Both marks evoked canine imagery through the shared element 'dogs', understood throughout the EU as basic English vocabulary. Though the initial elements 'war' and 'watch' conveyed different concepts—military versus surveillance contexts—this difference did not outweigh the similarity created by the common final element, particularly given that both compound expressions retained literal meanings involving dogs.

Bulkhead argued that conceptual differences should counteract visual and phonetic similarities, relying on established case law. However, the Court distinguished the present circumstances, noting that the conceptual similarity arising from the shared element 'dogs' prevented the differences from having such counteracting effect.

Application of the global assessment

The Court endorsed the Board of Appeal's conclusion on likelihood of confusion, applying the principle of interdependence between relevant factors. Given the identity or similarity of goods and services, combined with at least average visual and phonetic similarity and low conceptual similarity, confusion remained probable despite the relevant public's attention levels.

The judgement confirms that composite word marks sharing significant common elements may generate likelihood of confusion even where initial elements differ, particularly where the shared element carries clear meaning and forms the dominant final component. The decision reinforces the primacy of overall impression over isolated analysis of individual mark elements.