Where Do Prefixes And Suffixes Really Differentiate In Trade Marks? Lessons From Nutris v EUIPO

A recent judgment of the General Court of the European Union (11 February 2026) provides a timely reminder of a recurring issue in EU trade mark practice: where, in a composite word mark, does meaningful differentiation actually occur?

The decision in Nutris v EUIPO concerned a likelihood-of-confusion assessment between a figurative mark, ProbioDefend, and the earlier word mark DEFENDYL, for similar goods (nutritional supplements) in Class 5.

The Court upheld the refusal under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, confirming the position taken by the EUIPO Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. In doing so, it reinforced a consistent line of case law on overall impression, dominant elements and the limited distancing effect of prefixes and suffixes where two marks share a perceptual core.