Overview of CJEU case law from 13.10 to 19.10.2025
- Judgment – 15/10/2025 – Frutaria Innovation v EUIPO – Schneider (Frutaria), Case T-381/24
– The case concerned proceedings for invalidation of a trademark due to lack of distinctive character.
– Markus Schneider filed an application for invalidation of the EU word and figurative trade mark: 
registered in favour of Frutaria Innovation SL for goods and services in class 29: „Dried fruits”; class 31: „Fresh Fruit”; class 35: „Export of fresh fruit.” The basis for invalidation was the lack of distinctive character of the trademark.
– The Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity.
– The Board of Appeal partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division. In its view, the contested trade mark was descriptive of “dried fruits” in Class 29 and “fresh fruits” in Class 31. However, it had distinctive character for services in Class 35, i.e. „export of fresh fruit”.
– The right holder filed an appeal against the above-mentioned decision, indicating that the disputed trademark had acquired distinctive character for goods in classes 29 and 31 as a result of intensive use of the trademark.
– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It agreed with the Board of Appeal that the mere presentation of invoices relating to the sales volume of the goods in question sold under the contested trade mark could not constitute evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use.
Case details:
- Judgment – 15/10/2025 – Bulkhead v EUIPO – Ubisoft Entertainment (WARDOGS), Case T-109/25
– The case concerned opposition proceedings on grounds of likelihood of confusion.
– Bulkhead Ltd applied for an EU word mark: WARDOGS for goods in class 9 (including computer game software) and services in class 41 (including entertainment services and internet games).
– Ubisoft Entertainment filed an opposition based on an earlier EU word mark: WATCH DOGS registered for goods in class 9 (including video game software) and services in class 41 (including entertainment services and offering online games).
– The EUIPO Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition in respect of all the above-mentioned goods and services with the exception of „sunglasses; sunglasses cases, straps and chains; decorative magnets; refrigerator magnets” in Class 9.
– The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. It indicated that the compared trademarks showed at least average visual and phonetic similarity and at least low conceptual similarity.
– The CJEU dismissed the complaint and shared the view of the Board of Appeal regarding the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
Case details:
See more:
AI Before the Courts: How is the case law on artificial intelligence and intellectual property evolving?
The growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and the increasing importance of AI-generated content have created new challenges for the protection of intellectual property rights. Although the European Union has already adopted the pioneering AI Act,...
New labelling obligations for AI-generated or manipulated content
On August 2, 2026, part of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 13, 2024, establishing harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (the AI Act) entered into force. Among other provisions, Article 50 of the AI Act, concerning...
Act on Artificial Intelligence Systems Signed by the President
On 24 July 2026, the President signed the Act of 3 July 2026 on Artificial Intelligence Systems (the “Act”). The Act was published in the Journal of Laws on 27 July 2026 and will, as a rule, enter into force on 11 August 2026. The Act fulfils the obligations...