Not Everything “Uber” Is “UBER”

On November 18, 2024, the EUIPO Opposition Division fully dismissed the opposition filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. against the trademark “UBERWOOD.” The opposition targeted the registration of the trademark “UBERWOOD” for construction materials and flooring in Classes 6, 19, and 27. Uber relied on several earlier trademarks, including “UBER,” “UBEREATS,” and “UBERPOOL,” citing Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (likelihood of confusion) and Article 8(5) EUTMR (reputation). The trademark “UBER” was recognized as well-known and reputable in the EU for transport services (Class 39). Uber argued that “UBERWOOD” could benefit from the reputation of the “UBER” brand and suggest a connection.

However, the Opposition Division determined that the goods covered by “UBERWOOD” bore no relation to the services provided by “UBER.” The Division emphasized that the goods and services pertain to entirely different industries, utilize separate distribution channels, and have no overlap in market context.

The Division also analyzed whether consumers might establish a link between the trademarks. It concluded that the differences between the marks—especially due to the addition of “WOOD”—make such an association unlikely. Even if a fleeting mental connection were to arise, the entirely distinct nature of the goods and services would swiftly dismiss any notion of brand extension.

In light of these considerations, the Opposition Division fully rejected the opposition, finding no likelihood of confusion or reputation exploitation. This decision underscores that even renowned brands like “UBER” cannot protect their reputation without clear overlaps or connections to entirely different industries. The trademark “UBERWOOD” was thereby approved for registration.