1. Judgment – 08/10/2025 – Doors Bulgaria v EUIPO – Top Ten (Portes), Case T-586/24

– The case concerned proceedings concerning the failure to file an appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division within the deadline;

– Top Ten EOOD, filed an invalidity application with the EUIPO for an EU design representing a wooden door:.

– The Invalidity Division found that the contested design was invalid due to lack of novelty.

– The entitled person filed an appeal, but it was rejected due to the exceeding of the 4-month deadline from the date of delivery of the decision of the Invalidity Division.

– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It pointed out that the Board of Appeal had rightly found that the statement of grounds of appeal had been filed out of time and that, consequently, the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division was inadmissible. The claims that the Appeals Chamber had violated the right to a fair trial were therefore completely unfounded.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304994&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3534622 – analogiczna sprawa pod sygn. akt: T-585/24: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304993&
pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3534622 

2. Judgment – 08/10/2025 – Capella v EUIPO – Richemont International (COLORATURA), Case T-562/24

– The case concerned opposition proceedings due to the risk of confusion and the concept of „first filing” within the meaning of Art. 34 of Regulation 2017/1001.

– Capella EOOD filed a registration on 28 March 2018 for the word trademark COLORATURA for goods in classes 3 and 14 of the Nice Classification – citing a priority date of 28 September 2017, in connection with a trademark application filed with the German Patent Office. 

– Richemont International SA, filed an opposition against the registration of the trademark applied for, which was based on the German word trademark COLORATURA, filed on 28 December 2017 and registered on 6 February 2018 for goods and services in classes 14, 16, 18 and 35.

– The Opposition Division found that the trademark on which the opposition was based had the status of an earlier mark because the priority claim of the mark filed on 28 September 2017 was not valid. The reason for invalidity was that this entity had filed an application for an identical German trademark on 21 February 2017. This means that the German trademark application of 28 September 2017 did not constitute a first application within the meaning of Article 34(1) of Regulation 2017/1001. The fact that the application of 21 February 2017 was not paid for and was consequently rejected was irrelevant.

– The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. It pointed out that Capella EOOD could not rely on Article 34(4) of the aforementioned Regulation, which provides that a later notification is deemed to be a first notification under certain conditions, because those conditions were not met.

– According to the applicant, the German trademark application of 21 February 2017 could not be considered a first application within the meaning of Article 34(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 because the six-month period for asserting the right of priority had expired. It also pointed out that due to the failure to pay for the application of 21 February 2017, it was published without a precise indication of the goods and services.

– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It agreed with the Board of Appeal that the grant of priority right related only to the first application. It pointed out that although the application of 21 February 2017 had not been paid for, it had nevertheless been made available for public review by way of publication – therefore, the fact that there was no list of goods/services was irrelevant. The conditions of Article 34 paragraph 1 of the above-mentioned regulation were not met.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304992&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3627872

3. Judgment – 08/10/2025 – Huda Beauty v. EUIPO – Schulz (déjà-vu), Case T-333/24

– The case concerned proceedings to declare the revocation of a trademark due to lack of actual use.

– Norbert Schulz is entitled to the word trademark déjà-vu registered for goods in class 3 of the Nice Classification (including perfumes). 

– Huda Beauty Ltd filed an application to declare the above-mentioned trademark null and void.

– The Cancellation Division granted the application for revocation.

– The Board of Appeal partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division in so far as it found the contested trademark to be revoked in respect of „perfumery” goods in Class 3.

– The CJEU upheld the complaint. It found that a significant part of the evidence submitted by the Rightholder did not contain any references to the time and place of use of the trademark.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304990&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3610561