Created by Miuccia Prada within the Prada Group, MIU MIU embodies the house’s most inventive, expressive and contemporary line. With its bold creative identity and strong aesthetic codes, the brand has also established a significant presence in the luxury eyewear sector, distributing its optical and sun collections worldwide through selective retail networks, including Luxottica. In this context, MIU MIU successfully opposed the registration of the sign “MUMU” before the EUIPO.
On 3 October 2025, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO rendered its decision in Opposition No. B 3 211 619, filed by Prada S.A. against EU trademark application No. 18 938 399, submitted by the Chinese company Wenzhou Lishangglasses Manufacturing Co Ltd.
The contested application consisted of a figurative sign “MUMU” for various optical goods in Class 9. The opposition relied primarily on an earlier international trademark “MIU MIU” designating several EU Member States and covering eyewear, sunglasses and spectacle cases. The legal basis invoked was Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, relating to the likelihood of confusion.
The EUIPO upheld the opposition in full and rejected the application in its entirety.
As the applicant had requested proof of use, the EUIPO examined whether “MIU MIU” had been genuinely used between 17 October 2018 and 16 October 2023 in the relevant territories, pursuant to Articles 47 EUTMR and 10 EUTMDR.
Prada S.A. submitted extensive documentation, including multi-year product catalogues, invoices issued directly or through Luxottica, fashion magazine features, and photographs of boutiques offering MIU MIU eyewear.
The Opposition Division found that this evidence demonstrated genuine, public, continuous and commercially significant use of the earlier mark for eyewear, sunglasses and spectacle cases. In accordance with Article 47(2) EUTMR, the examination of the opposition was therefore limited to these three product categories.
The EUIPO first noted that the goods covered by “MUMU” were strictly identical to those covered by “MIU MIU”. Corrective eyewear and polarizing spectacles fall within the same general category as spectacles; sunglasses and spectacle cases overlap perfectly.
Turning to the comparison of signs, the EUIPO focused in particular on Spanish-speaking consumers, for whom both “MIU MIU” and “MUMU” are fanciful signs with no conceptual meaning. The conceptual analysis was therefore neutral.
Visually and phonetically, the signs were found to have a markedly similar structure. The sequence M–U–M–U appears in the same order in both signs and constitutes their essential composition. The presence of the vowel “I” in “MIU” introduces only a slight phonetic nuance, insufficient to produce a different overall impression. The rhythm, cadence and sound of the two signs are closely aligned.
The minimal stylisation of the contested sign does not alter this analysis, which is primarily driven by the verbal elements.
The EUIPO therefore concluded that the signs exhibit an average degree of visual and phonetic similarity, sufficient to mislead the relevant public given the identity of the goods.
In its global assessment, the EUIPO relied on the established criteria: the normal distinctiveness of the earlier mark, the identity of the goods, the similarity of the signs and the principle of imperfect recollection, even for attentive consumers purchasing eyewear.
The Office found that consumers could reasonably perceive “MUMU” as a variation, phonetic derivative or brand extension of “MIU MIU”.
A likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR was therefore established, leading to the rejection of the applicant’s trademark in its entirety.
In an environment where luxury houses are increasingly confronted with trademark filings that closely reproduce visual or phonetic structures of well-established brands, often used in commercially opportunistic, unfair or parasitic strategies, the EUIPO’s decision must be fully endorsed.
It demonstrates, with commendable clarity, the rigour with which European authorities protect the essential function of the trademark: guaranteeing the origin of goods and safeguarding the creative, commercial and symbolic investment of luxury brands against undue appropriation of their distinctive constructions.
