I think it's a more literal distinction.

51. In ihrer Entscheidung, mit der der Widerspruch wegen fehlender Verwechslungsgefahr zurückgewiesen wurde, hat die Widerspruchsabteilung ausgeführt:
„Selbst insoweit sich im vorliegenden Fall identische Waren gegenüberstehen, reichen die bestehenden Unterschiede der Vergleichszeichen aus, um [die Marken] mit noch hinreichender Sicherheit auseinander zu halten. Zwar sind im vorliegenden Fall strenge Maßstäbe an den einzuhaltenden Markenabstand auch deshalb anzulegen, weil es sich bei den betreffenden Vergleichswaren um Waren des täglichen Bedarfs handelt, die erfahrungsgemäß mit einer gewissen Flüchtigkeit und ohne besondere Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber den Warenkennzeichnungen erworben werden.“

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...

51 In that respect, it should be stated that, in its decision dismissing the opposition on the ground that there was no likelihood of confusion, the Opposition Division stated:
‘Although identical goods are at issue in this case, the differences between the signs which are compared suffice to distinguish [the marks] with enough certainty. Admittedly, strict criteria should be applied in this case as regards the difference which must exist between the marks, in particular because the goods compared are staple goods which, as experience shows, are bought fairly carelessly and without particular attention being paid to the names of the goods.’

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 32 mins (2009-01-21 23:08:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Trademarks, like brands, build in strength over time. The test for trademark infringement is “confusing similarity.” Put another way, if the average consumer believes both products to have come from the same source, there is infringement. Obviously, the more a consumer is familiar with a particular brand, the more defendable its mark. That’s why it behooves a company to do the following:
•choose a distinctive mark, including a “coined” name.

Suggestive marks are the next most protectable. Examples include Coppertone, Duracell, and Lestoil. Even common words can be used as trademarks as long as they are not used descriptively. These common words/phrases are also suggestive marks: Amazon (big), Road Runner (fast) and Apple (different, offbeat). Descriptive marks are not protectable unless the brand creates a secondary meaning for the word. Examples include Weight Watchers, Rollerblade, and Wite-out. Generic marks, such as Shredded Wheat and Super Glue, are not protectable at all.)

http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=18283&deptid...