What If Confusion Concerns Part of the Public?

The name 247 Lasersnijden (Dutch for 'Laser Cutting') does not infringe on 247TailorSteel's trademark and trade name, so the District Court of The Hague ruled in summary proceedings last week. 

One part in the decision stands out to me. The court indicates that both parties argued that '247' would be a descriptive element: it is pronounced in the English way and it refers to the continuous availability of services (namely: twenty four / seven). On balance, therefore, the differences between the components 'laser cutting' and 'tailorsteel' weigh more heavily, and 247tailorsteel draws the short straw.

But is '247' plainly descriptive for the relevant Dutch or Benelux public? I would expect that at least a part of the target group perceives this very element as distinctive: those who understand '247' differently than as "twenty four seven." For example, as "two - fourty seven" or "two hundred and forty-seven" (in English or in Dutch). If that part of the public is large enough, identity on this first part '247' may be sufficient for assuming a likelihood of confusion after all. Then it would make sense to substantiate this with evidence, e.g. a market survey. 

There seems to be an appeal opportunity here for 247tailorsteel. Of course, I'm not aware of all circumstances in this matter. There may be reasons for assuming that such market survey would not bring the required result after all. Nearly always there is more at stake in such trademark infringement proceedings than we can learn from the judgment alone.

Are you facing a trademark infingement in the European Union / Benelux / Netherlands? Let me know, I'm happy to take the lead or think along.