What Counts as Trademark Infringement? 10 Practical Examples
Last reviewed: 21 September 2026
TL;DR
EU trademark infringement generally arises when a business uses an identical or similar sign commercially in a way that conflicts with an earlier trademark. Risk is highest when the signs and products are identical or closely related, customers may assume a commercial connection, or the earlier mark has a reputation (or in other words, is well-known). However, context matters: genuine resale, comparative advertising, compatibility references, and descriptive use may be lawful in some circumstances. Assess the signs, goods and services, customers, territory, presentation, and evidence together—and preserve the facts and seek legal advice before enforcing a claim, admitting infringement, or rebranding.
A similar brand can become a commercial problem before anyone goes to court
You find a competitor using a name that looks uncomfortably close to yours. Or your business receives a letter claiming that its new name, logo, domain, advertisement, or product listing infringes an earlier trademark.
Trademark infringement can occur when a business commercially uses an identical or similar sign without permission in a way that conflicts with an earlier trademark. The central question is often whether customers are likely to believe the businesses are connected. Trademarks with a reputation may receive broader protection even where confusion is not established.
Infringement is a risk spectrum, not a simple name-matching exercise. The result depends on what is being sold, where the rights apply, how customers encounter the sign, and whether the use looks like branding, description, comparison, or resale.
EU trademark infringement generally falls into three categories
Article 9 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation allows an EU trademark owner to prevent certain unauthorized commercial uses of a sign. The three principal situations are:
Identical sign and identical goods or services. A business uses the same sign for the same type of product or service covered by the registration.
Identical or similar sign and identical or similar goods or services. The use creates a likelihood that customers will believe the businesses are the same or economically connected.
Conflict with a trademark that has a reputation. The use takes unfair advantage of, or damages, the distinctive character or reputation of an earlier trademark, potentially even when the products are not similar.
The use must normally take place “in the course of trade”: as part of commercial activity rather than in a purely private context. This can include placing a sign on products or packaging, offering goods for sale, importing or exporting goods, and using the sign in business documents or advertising.
Registering a company name or buying a domain does not settle the infringement question. What matters is how the sign is used. See Abrande’s article on why company names, domains, and trademarks are not the same thing.
EU trademark infringement examples at a glance
As a general rule, the more similar the trademarks are, the more different the relevant goods or services must be to reduce the likelihood of trademark infringement.
Scenario | Typical risk | Decisive question |
|---|---|---|
Identical name/logo for identical products | Very high | Does the earlier right cover the product and territory? |
Highly similar name for related services | High | Will customers assume a commercial connection? |
Same name in another industry | Low to high | Are the markets related, or is the earlier mark well-known? |
Closely similar logo | Medium to high | Could customers mistake the logos as identifying the same or economically connected businesses? |
Trademark in a domain name | Context-dependent | Does the domain impersonate, divert, or merely identify the brand? |
Social-media or marketplace impersonation | High | Does the account appear official or authorized? |
Competitor trademark used as an ad keyword | Context-dependent | Can users tell who is behind the advertisement? |
Resale of genuine branded products | Often lower | Were the goods placed on the EEA market with consent? |
Comparative advertising | Often lawful if compliant | Is the comparison objective, verifiable, and non-misleading? |
Compatibility or intended-purpose reference | Often lawful if proportionate | Is the mark used to inform customers or to imitate the brand? |
Use this three-question test for every potential conflict
What makes the use risky? Consider the similarity between the signs, commercial overlap, earlier rights, and how customers encounter the brands.
Which facts could change the conclusion? Territory, customer attention, reputation, genuine use, product relationships, disclaimers, and presentation can matter.
What should the business investigate? Check registration status, ownership, protected goods and services, actual market use, evidence of confusion, and relevant limitations or defences.
The examples below apply this framework without treating any single fact as decisive.
1. Using an identical name for identical products is usually very high risk
Imagine that an earlier EU trademark protects NUVORA for skincare products. A new business begins selling skincare under the identical name. This is normally very high risk because both the sign and the products appear identical.
The conclusion could change if the registration does not cover the relevant territory or goods, has expired or been cancelled, or is vulnerable because it has not been genuinely used. Confirm the owner, status, territory, priority date, goods and services, and evidence of genuine use. A database screenshot alone does not establish the scope or enforceability of the right.
2. A similar name aimed at the same customers is often high risk
Suppose one software company uses the fictional mark MAVERO and another launches related software as MAVERA. The names differ by one letter but may look, sound, and be remembered similarly. Risk increases when the services, customers, and sales channels overlap.
Relevant counterweights include different meanings or overall impressions, weak shared elements, and highly attentive specialist buyers. Compare appearance, pronunciation, meaning, dominant elements, customer groups, channels, and the earlier mark’s distinctiveness.
A real Swedish pet-food dispute involving DOGGY and DOGGIE illustrates why a small spelling difference may not prevent a conflict. See Abrande’s analysis of what DOGGY and DOGGIE teach founders about trademark similarity.
3. The same name in another industry may still create a conflict
A trademark for ORBITA covering accounting software may not automatically block an ORBITA clothing brand. The position could be different if the second business offers financial software, analytics, or another service customers might expect the first company to provide.
Different Nice classes are not an automatic defence. Class numbers organize applications; they do not decide whether goods or services are commercially related. Examine whether the products compete or complement each other, share customers or channels, and whether expansion between the sectors is common. A reputed earlier trademark may also receive broader protection. See Abrande’s practical explanation of Nice Classification.
4. A copycat or closely similar logo can create medium to high risk
A competitor need not copy every line of a logo. Imagine two fitness apps using a similar angular bird symbol, color arrangement, and placement beside their names, with one bird facing left and the other right. That change may be insufficient if customers retain the same overall impression.
Risk falls when shared elements are commonplace or the complete compositions are meaningfully different. Compare the logos as customers encounter them—in app icons, packaging, advertising, and marketplace thumbnails—rather than as a designer inspecting isolated details. There might also be copyright-related aspects to take into regard. See Abrande’s article on when to register a logo as a trademark.
5. Including another party’s trademark in a domain name is context-dependent
A domain such as “nuvora-support.eu” used for a fake customer-service site presents a different risk from a clearly independent criticism or information site. Risk rises when the domain looks official, copies brand assets, redirects traffic to competitors, sells products, or collects customer information.
Review the complete website, ownership records, commercial links, advertisements, redirects, disclaimers, and evidence of confusion. Registering a domain and using it for active commercial impersonation should not be treated as the same situation.
6. Brand impersonation on social media or marketplaces is often high risk
Impersonation may combine an official-looking username with copied logos, product photography, account biographies, storefront layouts, or customer-service messages. The strongest evidence often shows that users believe the account belongs to or is approved by the trademark owner.
A genuine reseller that clearly identifies itself as independent may require a different analysis. Preserve the username, profile, listings, URLs, dates, messages, transactions, and screenshots of the full customer journey. Platform removal and legal infringement are separate questions: a platform may apply contractual rules that differ from the test a court would use.
7. Using a competitor’s trademark in paid search advertising is context-dependent
A business may bid on a competitor’s trademark so its advertisement appears when users search for that brand. The Court of Justice of the European Union addressed keyword advertising in Google France and Interflora.
The practical question is whether a reasonably attentive internet user can understand that the advertiser is independent. Risk rises when the ad or landing page implies an authorized relationship, leaves the advertiser’s identity unclear, or takes unfair advantage of a reputed mark. Preserve the keyword setup, query, ad text, display URL, landing page, device, location, and date.
8. Reselling genuine branded products is often lawful, but there are limits
Article 15 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation contains the principle of exhaustion. A trademark owner generally cannot rely on its trademark to stop resale of genuine goods it placed on the European Economic Area market, or that were placed there with its consent.
Risk increases if the goods first entered the market outside the EEA, authenticity or supply cannot be established, the condition or packaging has changed, or the marketing falsely suggests an authorized-dealer relationship. Check invoices, supply chains, serial numbers, packaging, geographic origin, condition, and presentation. BMW v Deenik provides useful context on trademark use when advertising repair and maintenance services.
9. Using a competitor’s trademark in comparative advertising can be lawful
Comparative advertising is not automatically infringement. Under the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, a comparison should avoid misleading customers, creating confusion, discrediting a competitor, or taking unfair advantage of another brand’s reputation.
“Our monthly plan costs €30 less than BRAND X’s equivalent plan” may be lower risk if the comparison is current, objective, representative, verifiable, and clearly attributed. Copying BRAND X’s packaging or describing a product as a “BRAND X replica” creates a different problem. Review every claim, its date and source, the complete presentation, and whether customers can verify the comparison.
10. Descriptive, compatibility, and intended-purpose references can be lawful
Article 14 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation can permit certain uses of another party’s trademark when they follow honest commercial practices. This includes references identifying the owner’s goods or explaining the intended purpose of accessories, spare parts, or services.
“Replacement charging cable compatible with NUVORA devices” may provide necessary information. Branding the cable as NUVORA, displaying the logo prominently, or making the packaging look official creates higher risk. Ask whether the mark is used accurately and proportionately to inform customers, or to capture the brand’s commercial appeal.
The most important infringement factors are commercial, not just visual
No single factor decides every case. A practical review should consider:
Visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity, including the overall impression and dominant elements.
The distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier trademark.
The goods and services covered by the registration and what the parties actually sell.
Whether the products compete, complement each other, or use the same channels.
Customer groups, attention levels, pricing, geography, and likely market expansion.
The territories covered by the earlier rights.
Evidence of actual confusion.
Actual confusion can be valuable but is not always required; the question may be whether confusion is likely. As a practical rule, closer signs require less commercial overlap, while closely related products generally require greater distance between the brands. Distinctive or reputed earlier marks may support a broader claim.
Unauthorized trademark use is not automatically infringement
A registration does not give its owner complete control over every mention of the name. Depending on the facts, infringement may not arise from private non-commercial activity, honest descriptive wording, necessary compatibility references, compliant comparative advertising, editorial references that do not imply affiliation, or resale of qualifying genuine goods.
These are not blanket exemptions. Purpose, wording, prominence, commercial context, and the complete presentation still matter.
Infringement, opposition, refusal, and counterfeiting are different problems
Infringement concerns unauthorized commercial use that conflicts with an existing right.
Opposition is a procedure used to challenge a pending trademark application.
Refusal occurs when a trademark office rejects all or part of an application.
Counterfeiting generally involves unauthorized goods or packaging presented as genuine.
Company-name conflict concerns business-name rights and may overlap with trademark law.
Copyright infringement concerns protected creative works; a logo dispute can involve both regimes.
If a trademark office has objected to an application, see why a trademark refusal is a commercial problem as well as a legal one.
If another business may be infringing, preserve the facts before contacting an attorney
Before contacting the other business or filing a platform complaint, assemble a clear factual record for an experienced trademark attorney to review:
Preserve dated evidence. Save full-page screenshots, URLs, advertisements, listings, receipts, customer messages, and examples of confusion. Record when and where each item appeared.
Gather your trademark records. Collect registration certificates, application details, renewal records, licences, assignments, and examples showing how and where your mark has been used.
Summarize the other party’s activity. Note the signs used, products or services offered, territories, sales channels, and when you first became aware of the activity.
Explain the business impact. Identify diverted enquiries, lost sales, customer confusion, reputational concerns, launch deadlines, or other reasons the issue may be urgent.
Avoid direct accusations or tactical changes. Do not threaten the other party, post public allegations, or alter evidence before counsel has reviewed the position.
A trademark attorney can then assess the scope and strength of the rights, relevant limitations, urgency, and proportionate response. Depending on the facts, the next step may be monitoring, a platform process, negotiation, a formal letter, or court action.
If you receive an infringement claim, prepare for attorney review before responding
A registration or demand letter does not establish infringement by itself. Before replying, give an experienced trademark attorney the information needed to assess the claim and protect your position:
Preserve the complete claim. Save the letter, email, attachments, envelope, and delivery details, and calendar every stated deadline.
Pause substantive communications. Acknowledge receipt only if necessary, without admitting liability, debating the merits, or promising changes before legal review.
Collect your brand history. Gather launch dates, naming records, trademark filings, designs, packaging, advertising, invoices, territories, and evidence of how the sign is actually used.
Prepare a factual business summary. Describe your products, customers, channels, geographic markets, planned launches, and any known instances—or absence—of confusion.
Preserve relevant commercial records. Keep sales data, supplier records, campaign materials, keyword settings, website versions, and communications relating to the disputed sign.
Flag urgent operational issues. Tell counsel about response deadlines, threatened proceedings, marketplace removals, product launches, inventory, fundraising, or other time-sensitive consequences.
Counsel can assess the claimant’s rights, the parties’ actual activities, possible defences or limitations, and options such as negotiation, coexistence, targeted changes, phased rebranding, or defence. A threat letter should prompt timely legal review, not an automatic admission or rebrand. See Abrande’s guide to responding to an EU trademark cease-and-desist letter.
Clearance before launch is usually cheaper than resolving a dispute later
Review infringement risk before committing to domains, packaging, development, campaigns, and marketplace onboarding. Build a shortlist, search identical and similar names, review national and EU registers, check sound and meaning, map current and planned markets, and investigate domains, company names, app stores, marketplaces, and social platforms.
Escalate material conflicts before filing or launch. Abrande’s article on avoiding trademark conflicts before an international launch provides a practical workflow.
Frequently asked questions about EU trademark infringement
Question | Answer |
|---|---|
Can two businesses use similar names in the EU? | Yes, where the goods, customers, territories, or commercial contexts are sufficiently different. Risk rises as the signs and activities move closer together or when the earlier mark is distinctive or well-known. |
Is actual customer confusion required? | Not always. Evidence of actual confusion can strengthen a claim, but the legal assessment often concerns whether confusion is likely. |
Are different Nice classes enough to avoid infringement? | No. Nice classes organize goods and services in applications. Products in different classes can be commercially related, while products in the same class are not automatically similar. |
Can a domain name infringe a trademark? | Yes, particularly when it is used commercially to impersonate a brand, divert customers, sell competing products, or imply authorization. Registration without active use may require a different analysis. |
Can a reseller use the original product’s trademark? | Often yes, where genuine goods qualify under EEA exhaustion rules and the trademark is used honestly to identify them. Risk increases if the goods entered the EEA without consent, were altered, or are marketed as if the seller were authorized. |
Can a competitor use my trademark in an advertisement? | Potentially. Keyword and comparative advertising are not automatically prohibited, but the presentation should identify the advertiser and avoid confusion, misleading claims, and unfair advantage. |
Does registering an EU trademark mean EUIPO will enforce it? | No. The owner is generally responsible for monitoring the market and deciding how to act. See Abrande’s article on monitoring and managing a registered trademark. |
The commercial takeaway
EU trademark infringement is not decided by one matching word, one class number, or one database result. The practical question is whether the challenged use interferes with an earlier trademark when the signs, products, customers, territory, and commercial presentation are considered together.
If you are choosing a new brand, investigate while changes are inexpensive. If you own the earlier rights, preserve evidence and obtain guidance before approaching the other party. If you receive a complaint, preserve the claim and prepare the relevant facts for prompt legal review before admitting liability or committing to a rebrand.
Planning a new name or launch? Use Abrande’s trademark clearance search as an initial screening step before investing in domains, packaging, product development, and marketing.
Concerned about a similar brand or responding to a claim? Abrande can review the earlier rights, commercial overlap, evidence, and proportionate response options.
This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Trademark infringement is fact-specific and may depend on national law, procedure, territory, evidence, and the way the sign is used. Obtain advice on your circumstances before taking enforcement action, admitting infringement, or making a major branding decision.
