The European Court of First Instance (General Court) must go back to the drawing board in the dispute between the trademark Barbara Becker on one hand and Becker Online Pro and Becker, belonging to the company Harman, on the other hand. This was decided by the Court of Justice, on 24 June (Case C-51/09 P). In their ruling, the court’s judges state that, by considering that these conflicting trade marks were similar due to the common element of 'Becker' and that there was a risk of confusion between them, the General Court has not properly appreciated the similarity.

The former spouse of tennis player Boris Becker had attempted to register the trademark Barbara Becker as a Community trademark with the Community Trademark Office (OHIM) for various equipment and instruments of a scientific, electrical, nautical and cinematographic nature. The American company Harman International Industries opposed the registration of this trademark, claiming that its Community trademarks Becker Online Pro and Becker covered the same products for which the registration had been requested prior to Barbara Becker’s application.

Harman argues that, since the products are identical and the trademarks are similar, their coexistence could create confusion amongst consumers as to the origin of the products. It bases itself on the Community Trademark Regulation, which prohibits the registration of a new trademark for identical or similar products when they could be confused with a previous trademark. In March 2007, the OHIM rejected the opposition ruling that only a certain degree of similarity existed between the two trade marks and therefore the public would not establish a connection between the two. Harman appealed to the General Court, which annulled OHIM's decision, on 2 December 2008. Barbara Becker appealed to the Court of Justice to annul this ruling.

The latter considered that the General Court did not analyse all of the relevant factors specific to the case, focusing on the surname aspect of the trademark rather than on the trade mark as a whole. It also criticised the General Court for ignoring whether “the person who requests that his first name and surname, taken together, be registered as a trade mark is well known, since that factor may obviously influence the perception of the mark by the relevant public”. The fact that the Becker trademark has previously been registered does not automatically give the right to refuse to register a trade mark composed of a first name and this surname even when the latter is common because “the overall impression given by the trade mark applied for is decisively affected by the addition of that first name, in so far as it conveys a whole new conceptual meaning”. The court therefore annulled the judgement of the General Court and sent it back to be re-examined.