Review of CJEU case law from 10/11/2025 to 16/11/2025

1. V-Label v EUIPO – Vriendly (VRIENDLY.ORG V VEGAN), Case T-464/24

– The case concerned trademark invalidation proceedings.

– Vriendly e. V. is the holder of the word-figurative trademark: , registered for goods in classes 3, 5, 18, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the Nice Classification.

– V-Label GmbH filed an application for invalidation of the above-mentioned trademark, based on the earlier international trademark with EU designation: , registered for goods and services in the following classes of the Nice Classification: 1–5, 10, 14–18, 20–34, 39, 43 and 44 due to likelihood of confusion.

– The Cancellation Division dismissed the application for invalidation.

– The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no likelihood of confusion. She noted that the dark green graphic element of the earlier trademark was perceived by some publics as a stylised capital letter „V” and by others as an image of a plant with a leaf. She pointed out that the earlier mark had no dominant elements.

– According to the applicant, there is a strong visual similarity between the conflicting marks, in particular when taking into account the actual or potential use of these marks – both consist of a dominant capital letter „V” in green on a yellow background. In her opinion, the focus was wrongly placed solely on the form of the marks presented in the register.

– The EU Court dismissed the complaint. He pointed out that when assessing the identity or similarity of signs, they should be compared in the form in which they are protected, i.e. in the form in which they were registered or filed. The actual or potential use of registered trademarks in another form is irrelevant for the purpose of comparing the signs. According to the Court, even for that part of the relevant public that perceives the dark green element of the earlier mark as the capital letter V, the stylisation of that capital letter differs between the earlier mark, where it is rounded at the end and represents a leaf, and the contested mark, where it appears in thick, straight lines. Furthermore, the earlier trade mark does not have any dominant elements, and the disputed mark contains elements not present in the earlier trade mark, namely the elements “vegan” and “vriendly.org”. It was found that there was a low degree of graphic similarity between the marks and there was no likelihood of consumers being confused.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=306100&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7430635

2. LG Electronics v EUIPO – Washtower IP (WASHTOWER), Case T-252/24

– The case concerned proceedings to invalidate a trademark due to its descriptive nature.

– Washtower IP BV is entitled to the EU word-figurative trademark:  registered for goods in class 20 of the Nice Classification (including cabinets for washing machines or tumble dryers).

– LG Electronics, Inc. filed an application to invalidate the above-mentioned trademark on the grounds of descriptiveness.

– The Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dismissed the invalidity application.

– The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. It found that the word element “washtower” of the contested mark was descriptive of the “furniture, namely cabinets for washing machines or tumble dryers” at issue, , but that its figurative element prevented that mark, considered as a whole, from being descriptive of those goods,. Secondly, the Board of Appeal found that the contested trademark as a whole was distinctive.

– The Court upheld the complaint and set aside the decision of the Appeals Chamber. It pointed out that the figurative element in the form of a shield did not represent any clear concept and did not convey any particular semantic meaning that could change the perception of the mark as a whole. Moreover, the font styling, its thickness and color, is not expressive enough to influence the way the verbal element is understood by the relevant target group.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=306099&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7431337

3. Centex v EUIPO – Adler Modemärkte (OWN), Case T-34/25

– The case concerned proceedings concerning an opposition to the registration of a trademark.

– Centex SpA has filed an EU word and figurative trademark application: for goods in class 25 of the Nice Classification.

– Adler Modemärkte GmbH filed an opposition against the registration of the above-mentioned trademark based on the earlier German word trademark: my own registered for goods from Lasy 25.

– In response to the opposition, evidence of genuine use of the trademark was requested.

– The EUIPO Opposition Division dismissed the opposition, stating that genuine use of the earlier trademark had not been proven.

– The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal in part, citing the argument that, contrary to the findings of the Opposition Division, proof of genuine use of the earlier mark had been provided in relation to „outerwear for women” in Class 25, and remitted the case for reconsideration.

– The EU Court dismissed the complaint. The court did not agree with the argument that the fact that the opponent had not submitted invoices or accounting documents along with the evidence concerning actual use meant that the use of the earlier trademark was only symbolic. The court indicated that the volume of sales of goods marked with the mark may be one of the factors proving actual use. It pointed out that the use of an earlier trademark does not always have to be quantitatively significant in order to be considered genuine.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=306101&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7430354