Contact us

Questions about your strategic brand development? 
Get expert advice from Louis-Philip Cattoir, IP &amp; Brand Strategist at Remarkable Europe.

Let’s talk about your challenge

Neem contact op

Vragen over jouw strategische merkontwikkeling? 
Krijg advies van Louis-Philip Cattoir, IP &amp; Merkstrateeg bij Remarkable Europe.

Laten we jouw uitdaging bespreken

Contact

Schrijf je in voor onze maandelijkse nieuwsbrief!

Thank you!

Bedankt!

Looking for more strategic, creative, and legal brand insights?

Wil je meer strategische, creatieve en juridische merkinzichten ontvangen?

Footer Bottom Menu

Footer Bottom Menu NL

Footer Menu EN

Footer Menu NL

Header Menu EN

Header Menu NL

What happens when two trademarks differ by just one letter? Could confusion arise, or is there something else at play? The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) and the European trademark office (EUIPO) were thoroughly divided on this matter. The main players? Tech giant Apple Inc. and lighting manufacturer Opple Lighting Co.
&nbsp;
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-4544 aligncenter" src="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/03/Opple-in-use-300x300.jpg" alt="Remarkable Europe Opple" width="300" height="300" srcset="https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/03/Opple-in-use-300x300.jpg 300w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/03/Opple-in-use-1024x1024.jpg 1024w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/03/Opple-in-use-150x150.jpg 150w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/03/Opple-in-use-768x768.jpg 768w, https://admin.remarkable.eu/content/uploads/2025/03/Opple-in-use.jpg 1500w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />

A closer look at the neutralisation doctrine.

The issue arose when Opple Lighting Co. sought to register the trademark ‘OPPLE’ for marketing and business services. Apple Inc. opposed this registration, invoking its world-famous brand ‘APPLE’.
According to the EUIPO, there was no issue, applying the so-called ‘neutralisation doctrine’. Briefly explained, this doctrine argues that if one trademark evokes an immediately clear concept (an apple), and the other brand has no specific meaning, consumers will automatically distinguish between the two. Despite visual and phonetic similarities, EUIPO therefore saw no risk of confusion.

Neutralisation doctrine according to the EUIPO

However, the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) took another view. While BOIP acknowledged visual and phonetic similarities, it did not apply the neutralisation doctrine. According to BOIP, the trademark ‘APPLE’ does not merely evoke the fruit, but also immediately refers to one of the most famous brands in the world. This negates a core requirement for applying the neutralisation doctrine: a single clear meaning.
More importantly, BOIP judged primarily that Opple Lighting Co. would unfairly benefit from Apple Inc.&#8217;s strong reputation. Thus, the question wasn&#8217;t merely about potential confusion.

Benelux: A different interpretation

This case once again highlights that the application of the neutralisation doctrine is not always straightforward. Whether Apple Inc. will ultimately prevail in its appeal before the EUIPO remains something we will follow closely.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Apple vs. Opple: No clear verdict.