Kowalski v EUIPO – Hoyer (FLAMBIT – flambriks), Case T‑301/25
– The case concerned opposition proceedings against the registration of an EU trade mark.

– Mr Dariusz Kowalski filed an application for the registration of the following EU figurative sign FLAMBIT for goods in Class 4 of the Nice Classification (including firelighters, grill lighters, paper and wood spills for lighting fires, charcoal lighter fluid and solid fire starters):

 

– Hoyer SE, as the legal successor to the previous owner of the earlier rights, filed an opposition based on an earlier German word mark flambriks and an the following earlier German figurative mark.:

The earlier marks were registered for goods and services in Classes 4, 11 and 40 (including fuels and illuminants, igniters, woodworking services).

– The opposition was based on the likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition on the basis of the earlier figurative mark.

– The Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the basis of the earlier word mark only. It found that the relevant public consisted of the German general public with an average level of attention, that the goods at issue were identical, that the signs were visually similar to an average degree and phonetically similar to a high degree, and that no conceptual comparison was possible. It also held that the earlier word mark had an average degree of distinctiveness.

– The EU General Court dismissed the action. It held that although the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the relevant public would perceive the signs as indivisible units, and in its assessment of the degree of phonetic and conceptual similarity, those errors did not affect the outcome.

– The Court found that the element “flam” had weak but not negligible distinctiveness. It confirmed that the signs, taken as a whole, had an average degree of visual similarity, an average degree of phonetic similarity and a low degree of conceptual similarity. Given the identity of the goods and the principle of interdependence, there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

– The Court dismissed the action in its entirety.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0301-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/317395-EN-1-html

Mostostal v EUIPO – Mostostal Siedlce (MOSTOSTAL), Case T 663/24 

– The case concerned revocation proceedings for the EU word mark MOSTOSTAL on the ground of non use. The General Court stressed that, under Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, genuine use must be demonstrated by reference to the place, time, extent and nature of use and must be public and market oriented; the EU trade mark register cannot serve as a static repository for unused signs. 

– Mostostal S.A. owned the EU word mark MOSTOSTAL registered for a wide range of goods and services in Classes 6, 11, 19, 35 and 39. It was argued that name Mostostal has a long historical background linked to post-war reconstruction structures, and had registered earlier Polish trade marks (for example, the following figurative mark):

– The Court held that such history is irrelevant for proving the use of an EU trade mark registered only in 2011. 

– Mostostal Siedlce sp. z o.o. filed an application for revocation for Classes 6, 11, 19, 35 and 39, alleging no use during the relevant period 24.05.2012–23.05.2017. It argued that the proprietor’s evidence reflected only internal intra-group dealings rather than outward use in the marketplace. 

– The Cancellation Division upheld the application entirely, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate any market-facing provision of services under the mark and lacked any indication of continuity, scale or frequency of use. 

– The applicant submitted extensive materials, including invoices, management-service agreements, historical corporate records, photographs, registry extracts and a 2017 public-opinion survey. It also relied on use by subsidiaries as use with consent and invoked “proper reasons” for non use, citing ongoing litigation concerning historical rights to the name. 

– The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the evidence showed exclusively internal use within a group of companies sharing addresses, directors and organisational structures. It also found that even if considered external, the evidence lacked financial data and could not establish the extent of use. The Board further held that the cited disputes did not constitute proper reasons, because they did not create an objective obstacle preventing market use. 

– The General Court dismissed the action. It held that: 

• most evidence was historical or unrelated to the relevant period and therefore incapable of establishing genuine use of the EU mark registered in 2011;
• invoices and agreements involved only entities belonging to the same corporate group; shared addresses and common management confirmed the internal nature of use;
• the sign appeared as a company name rather than as a trade mark indicating commercial origin, contrary to the requirements of Article 51(1)(a);
• the number of invoices was minimal, and the removal of financial amounts made it impossible to assess the economic scale of use;
• pending disputes did not amount to proper reasons for non use, because they neither prevented nor rendered use unreasonable, and potential commercial risk cannot replace the need for objective obstacles beyond the proprietor’s control.

– The Court confirmed the findings of non use and the absence of proper reasons for non use, and therefore dismissed the action.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2024/T-0663-24-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/317398-EN-1-html

 

MAX magazín v EUIPO – RCS Mediagroup (MAX), Case T‑114/25
– The case concerned revocation proceedings for the EU word mark MAX due to alleged lack of genuine use.

– MAX magazín s. r. o. filed an application for revocation of the mark, which was registered for goods in Class 9 (including CDs and video recordings) and Class 16 (magazines, newspapers, periodicals and books).

– The Cancellation Division revoked the mark in its entirety with effect from 29 September 2022.

– RCS Mediagroup, the proprietor’s successor, appealed. The Board of Appeal upheld the revocation in respect of the goods in Class 9 and newspapers, periodicals and books in Class 16, but found that the mark had been genuinely used in relation to magazines.

– The Board of Appeal held that the proprietor had made real efforts to relaunch the MAX magazine. It relied on:
• the authorisation granted on 2 November 2020 for test issues published by the applicant, pursuant to which three test issues were placed on the market;
• the licence agreement of 8 November 2021 with another publisher for the German edition of MAX magazine for a three‑year period;
• invoices showing kiosk sales in Germany and Austria;
• invoices addressed to numerous railway stations in Germany;
• copies of cover pages of issues 03 and 04/2021 and 01, 02 and 03/2022.

– It concluded that although the sales volumes were modest, publication and distribution were regular during the last two years of the relevant period (2017-2022) and continued.

– The General Court dismissed the action. It held that:
• test issues published under authorisation could be taken into account as part of the overall assessment;
• invoices demonstrated outward, public distribution of MAX magazine;
• even low sales figures may constitute genuine use when they represent real market presence;
• the declaration of the licensee’s managing director had probative value when supported by external documentation;
• evidence slightly post‑dating the relevant period could be used to confirm continuity of use.

– The Court confirmed genuine use for magazines and rejected the request for full revocation. The action was dismissed.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0114-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/317402-EN-1-html

 

Kiss Nail Products v EUIPO (IMPRESS), Case T‑326/25
– The case concerned an application for registration of the EU word mark IMPRESS and its refusal on the ground of lack of distinctive character.

– Kiss Nail Products Inc. applied for the word mark IMPRESS for goods in Class 3 (including make‑up, skin, eye and nail care products, false eyelashes and brows, and related adhesives) and Class 8 (manicure tools and tools for eyelash and eyebrow care).

– The examiner rejected the application pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 on the basis that the mark was devoid of distinctive character.

– The Board of Appeal upheld the refusal. It held that the English word “impress” means “to make an impression” or “to have a strong or favourable effect,” and that the English‑speaking part of the EU public would perceive it as an ordinary promotional message directly referring to the desirable outcome of using the goods.

– According to the Board, the goods at issue are designed to enhance appearance, and the word “impress” will be perceived as a motivational, self‑evident advertising expression encouraging consumers to seek products that will impress others, not as an indication of commercial origin.

– The applicant argued that the term is merely broadly laudatory, not descriptive, and should therefore possess at least minimal distinctiveness. It also relied on previous similar registrations, including an earlier IMPRESS mark registered for identical goods.

– The General Court dismissed the action. It held that “impress” conveys a clear, direct promotional message linked to the effects of the goods and the term lacks any element that would trigger interpretation or cognitive effort. The Court undescored that the mark would be perceived solely as an advertising expression and cannot fulfil the essential function of identifying commercial origin.

– The Court held that earlier registrations do not bind EUIPO or the Court, and earlier registrations cited by the applicant were decisions of first‑instance bodies and cannot establish a binding practice.

– The Court therefore confirmed that the mark IMPRESS is devoid of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and dismissed the action.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0326-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/317401-EN-1-html

 

Shenzen Smoore Technology v EUIPO – Dongguan BEC Technology (V VENILO / V), Case T‑62/25
– The case concerned opposition proceedings regarding the registration of the EU figurative mark V VENILO, based on an earlier EU figurative mark consisting of the letter “v” inside a circle.

– Dongguan BEC Technology filed the application for the following V VENILO for goods in Class 34 (including electronic cigarettes, liquids and filters), services in Class 35 (including advertising, marketing, presentation of goods) and Class 42 (including technical research, design, product testing):

 

– Shenzen Smoore Technology lodged an opposition based on the following earlier EU figurative mark registered for goods in Classes 9 and 34 (including components for electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco devices and vaporizers):

– The Opposition Division rejected the opposition. The Board of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no similarity between the services in Classes 35 and 42 and the goods protected by the earlier mark, and no likelihood of confusion with respect to the goods in Class 34.

– The General Court identified several errors in the Board of Appeal’s assessment. In particular:
• the Board incorrectly considered that the mark applied for had no dominant element, whereas for a non‑negligible part of the public the dominant element is the figurative “v” within a circle;
• the two signs share the same structural composition (a bold black letter “v” within a black circle) while the differences in tilt, font or points of intersection are minor;
• for this part of the public, the visual and phonetic similarity between the signs is average, not low;
• the word element “venilo” plays a secondary role due to its size, placement and ordinary typeface.

– The Court agreed that the services in Classes 35 and 42 are dissimilar to the goods in Classes 9 and 34, and the earlier mark has weak inherent distinctiveness. The Court also argued that enhanced distinctiveness through use was not demonstrated, as the evidence did not allow conclusions regarding market share or consumer recognition.

– Given the average similarity of the signs and identity of the goods in Class 34, the Court found that a likelihood of confusion existed for a non‑negligible part of the relevant public. It annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision in so far as it dismissed the opposition concerning goods in Class 34.

– The action was dismissed as regards services in Classes 35 and 42.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0062-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/317394-EN-1-html

 

Pols Erm Tarim v EUIPO – Holder (Pol’s FREEZE FRESH / PAUL), Case T‑106/25
– The case concerned opposition proceedings against the following EU figurative mark Pol’s FREEZE FRESH for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32:

 

– The opposition was based on earlier EU figurative marks PAUL depuis 1889 and PAUL LE CAFE, with Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 (reputation, unfair advantage) being the decisive ground.

– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition except for live animals and organisms for breeding in Class 31. The Board of Appeal annulled the refusal only in respect of that small subset of goods and dismissed the rest of the appeal.

– The General Court dismissed the action in its entirety. It held that in the earlier mark, the dominant and distinctive element is the word “PAUL”, of normal distinctiveness, whereas in the applied‑for mark, the element “pol’s” is the only distinctive element and may be perceived as a variant of the first name Paul. The Court underscored that the term “freeze fresh” is descriptive for the goods concerned (freshly frozen or giving a fresh impression) and plays only a secondary role.

– The Court confirmed the Board’s assessment of low visual similarity, very high phonetic similarity for the French public, high conceptual similarity where first names convey conceptual meaning.

– The Court validated the finding that the earlier mark PAUL depuis 1889 has a reputation in France for:
• pastries, bread, cereal‑based goods (Class 30),
• retailing of such goods (Class 35),
• services for providing food and drink (Class 43).
Evidence included use of the PAUL bakery network and consistent recognition by the French INPI.

– The Court confirmed the existence of a “link” between the signs because all goods at issue belong to the food sector, they target the same consumers and may appear in the same outlets. The Court also found that the high phonetic similarity combined with the strong reputation of PAUL makes mental association likely.

– Use of Pol’s FREEZE FRESH would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark as positive associations linked to PAUL could be transferred to the applicant’s goods, sales could be boosted without corresponding investment. According to the Court this would constitute parasitic free‑riding prohibited by Article 8(5).

– The action was therefore dismissed.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0106-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/317076-EN-1-html