In a decision issued on 27 February 2026, the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO addressed the question of whether the growing convergence of mobility markets could lead to a likelihood of confusion between trademarks covering bicycles and those covering cars and electric cars.
In the proceedings, the Swiss company Scott Sports SA sought a declaration of invalidity against International Registration designating the European Union No. 1 689 953 held by the Chinese company Aima Technology Group Co., Ltd. The contested sign consists of the semi-figurative mark “SCOOX”, registered for cars and electric cars in Class 12.
Scott argued that this registration infringed its earlier EU trademark SCOTT, registered for bicycles and related parts and accessories. The EUIPO ultimately rejected the invalidity action, holding that the goods at issue are dissimilar and that one of the necessary conditions for a likelihood of confusion is therefore not fulfilled.
The invalidity action was based on European Union Trade Mark No. 4 508 461 “SCOTT”, owned by Scott Sports SA and registered, inter alia, in Class 12 for bicycles, as well as accessories, parts and fittings for bicycles, including handlebar grips.
Scott Sports is a well-known manufacturer in the sporting goods and cycling industry. Originally founded in the United States and now headquartered in Switzerland, the company has established itself as a leading brand in the fields of road cycling, mountain biking and electric bicycles, as well as technical equipment for outdoor sports.
The action was directed against International Registration designating the European Union No. 1 689 953, held by Aima Technology Group Co., Ltd. The contested sign is a semi-figurative mark “SCOOX”, registered in Class 12 for cars and electric cars.
The invalidity request was brought under Article 60(1)(a) EUTMR in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, which provides for the invalidity of a mark where there exists a likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark.
Scott Sports argued that the development of electric mobility has progressively blurred the boundaries between different transport sectors.
According to the applicant, bicycles—particularly electric bicycles—form part of a broader ecosystem of sustainable mobility that also includes electric vehicles. Scott therefore submitted that the relevant goods share the same general purpose of personal transportation, and that they may increasingly be marketed through overlapping commercial environments, such as mobility platforms or diversified transport brands.
The applicant further argued that consumers are accustomed to seeing companies operate across several segments of the transport market, ranging from bicycles to scooters and electric vehicles. In this context, Scott claimed that the coexistence of similar marks for these products could lead consumers to believe that the goods originate from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings.
The Cancellation Division began by recalling the legal framework governing the assessment of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
A likelihood of confusion exists where there is a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question originate from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings. The assessment must be made globally, taking into account several interdependent factors, including the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods or services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the perception of the relevant public.
However, as the EUIPO emphasized, similarity of the goods or services constitutes a necessary precondition. In the absence of any similarity between the goods at issue, the examination of the similarity of the signs becomes irrelevant.
In assessing the similarity of goods, the Office refers to the criteria developed in the case law of the Court of Justice, commonly known as the Canon criteria, which include the nature of the goods, their intended purpose, their method of use, whether they are in competition or complementary, their distribution channels and their usual commercial origin.
Applying these criteria, the Cancellation Division concluded that bicycles and their parts and accessories, on the one hand, and cars and electric cars, on the other hand, are dissimilar in all relevant respects.
The Office first noted the fundamental differences in the nature and technical characteristics of the goods. Cars are motor-powered, enclosed and mechanically complex vehicles designed for high-speed road use. Bicycles, by contrast, are essentially mechanically operated vehicles whose functioning primarily depends on human pedalling power, even where electric assistance is available.
The purpose and use of these goods also diverge significantly. Cars are intended for fast personal transportation over longer distances, whereas bicycles are commonly used for shorter trips, sport, leisure or recreational activities.
Their methods of use are also different: driving a motor vehicle requires specific skills and, typically, a driving licence, while riding a bicycle only requires basic physical pedalling and balance.
The EUIPO further observed that the goods originate from different industrial sectors. Cars are produced by specialised automotive manufacturers with complex industrial infrastructures for the design and assembly of motor vehicles. Bicycles, by contrast, are generally manufactured by companies active in the bicycle or sporting goods industry.
The distribution channels also differ significantly. Cars are typically purchased through specialised car dealerships, whereas bicycles are usually sold in bicycle shops or general sports retailers.
Finally, the Office noted that Scott had provided no evidence supporting its argument that bicycle manufacturers are increasingly diversifying into the production of electric cars.
On the basis of these considerations, the Cancellation Division concluded that the goods covered by the marks SCOTT and SCOOX are clearly dissimilar.
Since similarity of goods is a necessary condition for a finding of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the absence of such similarity is sufficient to dispose of the case. The principle that a lesser degree of similarity between goods may be offset by a greater similarity between the signs does not apply where the goods are entirely dissimilar.
Accordingly, the EUIPO rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Conclusion
This decision illustrates the EUIPO’s cautious approach when faced with arguments based on the transformation of mobility markets. Although technological developments and the electrification of transport may bring different industries closer together, the legal assessment of likelihood of confusion remains grounded in objective criteria relating to the nature, purpose, and commercial origin of the goods.
In the absence of evidence demonstrating a genuine industrial convergence between the cycling and automotive sectors, the Office held that bicycles marketed under the trademark SCOTT and electric cars marketed under the semi-figurative trademark SCOOX cannot reasonably be perceived as originating from the same undertaking.
