## Facts

- A trademark proprietor owned two Community trade marks used for halal food products containing a dominant Arabic word rendered in both Latin and Arabic script.
- Two Belgian companies marketed halal meat products using a sign that also contained Arabic wording in both scripts and was visually similar to the proprietor’s word element.
- In Belgian infringement proceedings, the national court found the goods covered by the marks and the sign were identical or at least similar.
- The national court also found that, although the dominant word elements were visually somewhat similar, their pronunciation and meaning differed substantially.
- The national court defined the relevant public as Muslim consumers of Arab origin in the European Union who buy halal food products and have at least basic knowledge of written Arabic.
- The national court referred a question for a preliminary ruling on how to assess likelihood of confusion where the marks contain Arabic words and the relevant public understands Arabic.

## Issues

1. In assessing likelihood of confusion for identical or similar goods, must a court consider the meaning and pronunciation of Arabic word elements appearing in both Latin and Arabic script when the relevant public has basic knowledge of written Arabic?
2. May the confusion analysis be limited to visual comparison when the relevant public can understand the non‑EU-language elements?

## Decision

- The court interpreted EU trademark law to require that, in the stated circumstances, the meaning and pronunciation of the Arabic words be taken into account in assessing likelihood of confusion.
- The court reaffirmed that likelihood of confusion requires a global assessment of visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities from the standpoint of the relevant public.
- The court did not decide whether confusion existed on the facts; it instructed the national court to apply the interpreted standard.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors and the overall impression created by the marks, including distinctive and dominant elements.
- Where the relevant public has sufficient knowledge of the language used in a mark element, phonetic and conceptual comparisons are required and cannot be omitted in favor of a purely visual assessment.
- The analysis is not confined to words in official EU languages; what matters is the linguistic competence of the relevant public targeted by the goods or services.

## Conclusion

When both the mark and the challenged sign contain visually similar dominant Arabic word elements in Latin and Arabic script, and the targeted consumers can read Arabic at a basic level, courts must consider the words’ pronunciation and meaning as part of the overall likelihood-of-confusion assessment.


Loutfi Mgmt. Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v. AMJ Meatproducts NV, Case C-147/14 (C.J.E.U. 2015)