Eminem's trade mark dispute: Slim Shady vs. Swim Shady - EU trade mark dispute: Nokia vs Nooka Your Space

Eminem's trade mark dispute: Swim Shady vs. Slim Shady. 

U.S. rapper Marshall B. Mathers III, better known as Eminem, has taken legal action against an Australian beach products company for using the brand ‘Swim Shady’, claiming it creates a false association with his alter ego, ‘Slim Shady’, and his various registered trade marks. 

It is worth noting that Swim Shady Pty Ltd owns the word mark 'SWIM SHADY', which covers goods in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Classification, including beach products such as portable umbrellas, swim bags, towels, and swim shorts. This trade mark (no. 1816542) has been extended internationally via the Madrid System to include China, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States, among other countries. In the European Union, protection was granted in March 2025. However, in the United States, the international extension was initially refused in May 2025. Nevertheless, the company secured its position through an independent national registration (no. 7954114), which was filed on 20 September 2024 and granted on 23 September 2025. Following this grant, Eminem’s legal team filed a request to cancel the US registration. 

The dispute has also spread to Australia. There, the artist opposed the national 'Swim Shady' trade mark (no. 2437147)  and filed to register 'Slim Shady' (no. 2518197) in January 2025. In response, the Australian company has initiated non-use proceedings against earlier 'Shady'-related registrations, aiming to eliminate potential obstacles. 

From the artist’s perspective, the notoriety built around his alias since the late 1990s means that 'Swim Shady' exploits that identity, even though the products operate in different sectors. However, in the end, the IP offices will have to determine whether the public is likely to associate 'Swim Shady' with 'Slim Shady', and consider each party's proof of use and reputation, as well as the likelihood of confusion in each market. 

EU trade mark dispute: Nokia vs Nooka Your Space 

On 3 December, the General Court of the European Union ruled on case T-617/24 concerning opposition to the EU figurative trade mark 'NOOKA YOUR SPACE' (no. 018842379). 

In 2022, the Irish company Nooka Space Ltd applied to the EUIPO to register a figurative mark consisting of the letters N, K and A, two circular elements forming the word 'NOOKA', and the words 'YOUR SPACE' for Classes 9, 35, 38, 42 and 45. The application primarily covered downloadable software, office functions, online forums and messaging, as well as Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS) services related to booking and managing office space and equipment. However, the Finnish company Nokia Oyj opposed the application on the basis of its earlier EU word mark NOKIA (no. 16147902), which covers goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 42 and 45. 

For the purposes of the assessment, it was assumed that many of the goods and services overlapped with those covered by NOKIA, except for mobile phones, which were not included in Nooka Space's application. 

Both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion. Although they acknowledged NOKIA’s distinctiveness through its use in relation to mobile phones, it was considered not to be decisive for booking and space management solutions. For the remaining relevant goods and services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark was normal. 

Following an appeal to the General Court, the court upheld the absence of a likelihood of confusion between Nokia and the figurative mark Nooka Your Space. The Court based its decision on how the relevant public would perceive the applied-for mark, which consists of a set of letters, a black ring and a red circle that could be read as the letter 'o', as well as the visible and intelligible element 'YOUR SPACE', which conveys the meaning 'your space'. Moreover, it noted that there was no single dominant element within the disputed sign. 

In addition, the General Court identified a low degree of visual similarity due to the figurative structure and presence of 'YOUR SPACE', a below-average degree of phonetic similarity given that this element is also pronounced and extends the sign, and a conceptual difference considering the semantic content of 'your space' versus 'NOKIA', which has no meaning. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that the selection of software and related services is primarily visual, and that the relevant public, both general and professional, tends to pay average to high attention. Even assuming an overlap in some of the services, the combination of the low similarity between the signs, the conceptual difference, and the level of attention excludes the possibility of confusion. As a result, Nokia’s appeal was dismissed and the EUIPO’s decision was upheld.