In trademark law, a small variation can seem enough… until it is examined more closely.
In this case, the mark PLAIXE (mixed) was applied for to identify software and commercial services in Classes 9 and 35. Our client opposed the application, arguing that the sign was too close to its prior mark PLUXEE.
After assessing the marks in their entirety, the authority concluded that they shared phonetic structures and denominative elements sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.
In addition, the goods and services covered by both marks were identical or competitively related, particularly in the fields of software and commercial services.
As a result, the Colombian Trademark Office upheld our client’s opposition and refused the registration of the applied-for mark.
A clear reminder that in trademark law, the line between resemblance and confusion can be thinner than it seems.
If you are an international business and wish to venture into the Colombian market, do not hesitate to contact us to plan a successful legal strategy to protect your brand. Reach us through the email [email protected] or contact us to evaluate the trademark situation of your company and your needs.
| Case study | |
| Title of the case | THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN RESEMBLANCE AND CONFUSION |
| Client name | PLUXEE INTERNATIONAL |
| Confidential (Yes or No) | NO |
| Referred work or direct client work | DIRECT CLIENT WORK |
| Industry/sector | Corporate Services / Employee Benefits / Financial Technology |
| Type of trademark work (e.g. filing/prosecution, opposition, litigation) | Opposition |
| Court/tribunal or IP office document number (if applicable) | Resolution No. 13165 of 2026 Superintendence of Industry and Commerce |
| Start date | July 2, 2025 |
| Date of completion or ongoing | February 25, 2026 |
| Key partner(s) involved – up to three partners (USA firms: please include their state or location) | Juan Carlos Uribe |
| Key non-partners involved (no more than three individuals) | Lucas Jaramillo Currea |
| Opposing client (Nombre de la contraparte) | |
| Opposing firm (if applicable) (Nombre de la firma que representa la contraparte) | |
| Key opposing practitioners (if applicable) (Abogado que representa la contraparte) | |
| Monetary value (if applicable) | |
| Summary of the work | |
| Representation of the client in opposition proceedings against the application for the mixed mark PLAIXE in Classes 9 and 35. The opposition argued likelihood of confusion with the client’s prior sign PLUXEE, based on phonetic and structural similarities and the competitive relationship between the relevant goods and services. | |
| The significance, impact and/or outcome | |
| This is yet another case where we have been systematically protecting the client´s PLUXEE mark against certain actors who have been insistently trying to register highly similar trademarks. In this line, our arguments led the CTMO to conclude that the signs were confusingly similar and that the goods and services were identical or competitively related. Consequently, the authority upheld the opposition and refused the registration of the applied-for mark in both classes, preventing potential confusion in the market for the client´s mark and their consumers. | |