It is not recommended to use a common language word or a descriptive term as a mark, under penalty of nullity.
But this word or this term can nevertheless be considered valid and lead to the success of a complaint when a risk of confusion between the marks is demonstrated.
The risk of confusion nevertheless remains low when common language terms are in competition but are accompanied by variations allowing them to be distinguished.
Trademark law: the risk of confusion also concerns weakly distinctive marks, taken from everyday language...varied case law:
Recent TEU case law (The Rooster / The French Rooster)
where the court indicates that the distinctiveness of the mark cannot be assessed in the context of opposition proceedings, that the earlier mark is a priori valid, and where it appears that the weakly distinctive character of the signs in question does not does not prevent a risk of confusion between the marks.
comp. INPI – IROBOTS – Rejection of the opposition IROBOTS/DIROBOTS
where the INPI retains the descriptive and weakly distinctive character of "ROBOTS" in the signs present to retain that the letter D characterizes the conceptual, phonetic and visual differences allowing it to be considered that there is no risk of confusion between the signs.
Be accompanied by a trademark lawyer
See as well :
Recent example of case law on weakly distinctive marks with risk of confusion excluded:
Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, ch. 3-1, December 9, 2021, 20/03556 (M20210293)
My Luxury Travel SARL c. My Luxury Travel SAS
(Confirmation TJ Marseille, Jan. 23, 2020, 18/01275)
English 
French 
German 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian