WIPARK vs REPARK: Not every similarity between trade marks gives rise to a likelihood of confusion

Identical services, similar trade marks, and yet no likelihood of confusion? The decisions of the EUIPO and the Board of Appeal in the dispute between WIPARK and REPARK demonstrate why, when assessing the likelihood of confusion, it is not solely the number of matching words or letters that is decisive. Rather, the decisive factor is which elements of a trade mark are actually capable of indicating the commercial origin.

WIPARK Garagen GmbH filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the declaration of invalidity of the EU figurative mark ‘repark’. The application was based in particular on the earlier Austrian word mark ‘WIPARK’ and was directed, amongst other things, against services relating to car parks, multi-storey car parks and the parking of vehicles.

The Cancellation Division rejected the application in its entirety on 31 March 2026. The Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO also upheld this decision in its ruling of 14 September 2026. Repark GmbH, represented by GEISTWERT, was thus able to successfully defend its EU trade mark in the appeal proceedings as well.

Identical services, but only very slight similarity between the signs

The relevant services in Class 39 were assessed as being identical. Furthermore, both marks consist of six letters, are two-syllable words and end with the element ‘PARK’.

Consequently, a certain degree of similarity between WIPARK and repark could not be ruled out from the outset. The Board of Appeal found a very low degree of similarity in terms of visual, phonetic and conceptual aspects. However, the mere finding of a similarity between the signs – even if only slight – does not in itself answer the crucial question of whether there is in fact a likelihood of confusion.

In the comprehensive assessment, what matters most is the basis on which the similarity arises.

‘PARK’ describes the service, not its origin

The common element ‘PARK’ is immediately associated by the relevant public with parking or a car park. In the case of services consisting specifically of the provision, letting or reservation of parking spaces and garages, this term merely conveys factual information about the subject matter and purpose of the offer.

‘PARK’ is therefore not understood as an indication of a specific undertaking. Taken on its own, the element is not distinctive in relation to the services in question. This was precisely the crux of the proceedings.

It is true that descriptive or non-distinctive elements must not simply be disregarded when comparing two trade marks. They remain part of the overall impression of each mark. However, when assessing the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion, their similarity is generally given significantly less weight than a similarity in a distinctive element.

The decisions thus draw an important distinction: even a clearly recognisable similarity may carry little weight under trade mark law if it relates exclusively to the descriptive part of the signs.

The difference lies at the beginning

The EUIPO contrasted the common element ‘PARK’ with the different beginnings of the signs, ‘WI’ and ‘re’.

Whilst the element ‘WI’ may evoke associations with Vienna amongst a section of the Austrian public, the Board of Appeal found that it could not be established that ‘WI’ is generally understood as a common abbreviation for Vienna. Its meaning therefore remained indeterminate and open to interpretation. The element was assessed as having average distinctive character.

‘re’, on the other hand, can be understood as a prefix meaning ‘again’, ‘back’ or ‘anew’. However, the combination ‘repark’ constitutes an unusual word formation in German and does not convey any immediately descriptive meaning in relation to the services claimed. The Board of Appeal also attributed average distinctiveness to this element.

Thus, the differences between the trade marks concerned precisely those elements which, in contrast to ‘PARK’, can be perceived as an indication of commercial origin. In addition, the contested trade mark featured a colour distinction, with ‘re’ in green and ‘park’ in blue.

The different beginnings of the signs, ‘WI’ and ‘re’, therefore had a significantly greater impact on the respective overall impression than the shared descriptive ending.

No mechanical assessment of likelihood of confusion

The decisions also illustrate that the assessment of the likelihood of confusion is not merely a ‘mathematical exercise’.

Admittedly, the principle of reciprocity applies: a high degree of similarity between services can compensate for a lower degree of similarity between signs, and vice versa. However, this principle does not automatically lead to a likelihood of confusion simply because the services are identical.

A clear victory for REPARK

For Repark GmbH, represented by GEISTWERT, this represents a complete victory at both levels of appeal.