Rolex challenged theregistration of a figurative sign depicting a crown, used for clothing items.Its argument was that its own mark, renowned in the field of watches, would beharmed.

The General Courtdismissed the opposition. The central reason was that watches and clothingitems are not similar goods. Without similarity between the goods, there can beno likelihood of confusion, no matter how similar the signs may be.

This decisionunderscores a core principle of trademark law: the existence of a similar signis not, by itself, enough. Several factors must be satisfied cumulatively,namely similarity of the signs, similarity of the goods, and an actuallikelihood of confusion.

There is an exceptionfor marks with a reputation, which may be protected beyond the category ofgoods for which they are registered, but even there the evidential burden isexacting.