A recent EUIPO Opposition Division decision suggests that the answer may lie in how consumers mentally process what they see. In Marc Jacobs Trademarks LLC v Zhanpeng Jiang, the Opposition Division found that the sign “Makcr Joacbv” was sufficiently similar to the sign MARC JACOBS to support a successful opposition. The decision is noteworthy because of the EUIPO’s reasoning used to establish similarity between two signs which at first sight, might appear rather different.

Not your typical typo

The contested application “Makcr Joacbv”, filed by a Chinese individual, covered various class 18 goods, including handbags, backpacks, purses and travelling bags. Marc Jacobs opposed the application on the basis of its earlier EUTM MARC JACOBS.

The applicant’s sign was not a straightforward imitation. Unlike more conventional lookalike marks, it did not merely omit, replace or transpose a single letter. Instead, both words had been substantially altered. “Makcr” and “Joacbv” do not correspond to existing words, surnames or names in any European language and, viewed in isolation, appear to be little more than arbitrary combinations of letters.

One might therefore have expected the comparison of the signs to be relatively straightforward. However, the Opposition Division took a different view.

A trade mark autocorrect?

The Opposition Division acknowledged that “Makcr Joacbv” has no apparent meaning in any European language. Nevertheless, it considered that at least a non-negligible part of the relevant public, particularly English-speaking consumers, would not perceive “Makcr Joacbv” as a purely arbitrary or fanciful combination of letters. Rather, those consumers may recognise it as a distorted or misspelled version of the familiar name “Marc” (or its equivalent “Mark”) and the surname “Jacobs”.

According to the Opposition Division, this is particularly plausible because both “Marc” and “Jacobs” are relatively common names. As a result, consumers may instinctively rearrange the letters when reading the application and perceive within it a similar name and surname. The Opposition Division further considered that the pronunciation of “Makcr Joacbv” would be cumbersome and unnatural. For ease of articulation, consumers may therefore naturally reorder the misspelled letters when referring to the sign and, in doing so, associate it with MARC JACOBS.

In many respects, the reasoning resembles a form of mental “autocorrect”. The Opposition Division focused not only on the spelling of the sign, but also on how consumers would process it in practice.

Beyond conventional misspellings

The decision is particularly interesting because it goes beyond traditional cases involving simple misspellings or minor typographical errors. Here, similarity was not based on the omission, replacement or transposition of a single letter. Instead, several letters had been rearranged, resulting in expressions that no longer resembled ordinary words. Despite this, the Opposition Division considered that consumers would still identify the earlier mark hidden within the application.

The decision therefore illustrates that the assessment of similarity is not limited to a mechanical, side-by-side comparison of the letters appearing on the register. Consumer perception remains decisive. If consumers are likely to recognise an underlying reference to an earlier mark, similarity may be found even where the later sign has been significantly distorted.

Does fame influence perception?

The opposition ultimately succeeded under Article 8(5) EUTMR. While reputation was not expressly identified as decisive for the similarity assessment, it may well have influenced how readily the Opposition Division accepted that consumers would recognise MARC JACOBS beneath the distorted sign “Makcr Joacbv”. Whether the same conclusion would have been reached for a lesser-known mark remains open.

In short

The decision demonstrates that trade mark similarity is not confined to obvious misspellings or minor typographical variations. Where a later sign appears to be a deliberate distortion of a well-known mark, the EUIPO may consider how consumers are likely to mentally process, reconstruct and recognise that sign.

For brand owners, the case provides reassurance that substantial alterations to a famous mark will not necessarily prevent a successful opposition. For applicants, it serves as a reminder that simply scrambling letters may not be enough to avoid a finding of similarity where consumers are still likely to recognise the brand hidden beneath the surface.

The decision can be appealed until the end of June 2026. 

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: European Union
Decision Level: Opposition Division
Parties: Marc Jacobs Trademarks LLC v Zhanpeng Jiang 
Citation: B 3 235 232
Date: 30/04/2026
Decision: dycip.com/makcr-joacbv