Review of CJEU case law from 20/10/2025 to 26/10/2025

1. Judgment – 22/10/2025 – Puma v EUIPO – CMS (CMS Italy), Case T-491/24

– The case concerned opposition proceedings against a trademark application (infringement of reputation).

– CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA has filed an international figurative trademark application with EU designation: . The mark was filed for goods in Class 7 (apparatus and machines for industrial use for the manufacture of heat exchangers of all kinds), Class 11 (including heating systems and devices) and services in Class 37 (including installation of heating systems).

– Puma SE filed an opposition against the registration of the above-mentioned mark based on

(i) earlier international figurative mark registered in numerous EU countries:  for goods in class 18 (including leather goods, bags), class 25 (including clothing), class 28 (including games, toys).

(ii) earlier international figurative mark registered in numerous EU countries: for goods in class 18 (including leather goods, bags), class 25 (including clothing), class 28 (including games, toys).

– The objection was filed against all goods and services. Puma SE invoked the reputation of the above-mentioned trademarks.

– The Opposition Division dismissed the opposition on the grounds that the reputation of the earlier trademarks had not been proven.

– The EUIPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal and did not take into account the additional evidence of reputation submitted by Puma SE.

– The court declared the above-mentioned decision invalid. The Court found, first, that the Board of Appeal had wrongly disregarded the previous decisions of EUIPO submitted by the applicant before the Opposition Division in order to demonstrate the reputation of the earlier marks relied on and, second, that it had wrongly rejected as inadmissible the evidence submitted in the appeal proceedings.

– The Board of Appeal again dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition.

– The Court again annulled the decision of the Appeals Chamber. It pointed out that the Board of Appeal had wrongly found that there was no need to examine the opposition based on earlier trademark No. 2 solely because it showed a lower degree of similarity with the trademark applied for than with earlier trademark No. 1. In that regard, the Court emphasised that the degree of similarity between the signs constitutes only one of the relevant factors for the assessment of the infringement of reputation and that, consequently, the lower degree of similarity of earlier mark No 2 may be compensated, in particular, by a higher degree of reputation.

– The Appeals Chamber again dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that a cumulative consideration of the evidence submitted by the applicant showed “at least” an average degree of reputation for the earlier marks. In its view, no link had been established between the conflicting trade marks, despite the “at least” average degree of reputation of the earlier trade marks. It pointed out that the applicant had not demonstrated that there had been no unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trademarks or there had been no detriment to their distinctive character or repute.

– The CJEU upheld the complaint and annulled the above-mentioned decision. According to the CJEU, the Board of Appeal did not take into account in any way the hypothesis most favourable to the applicant (which it itself invoked), namely the hypothesis of a „very high” degree of reputation of the Puma marks for sports clothing and footwear, in the overall assessment of the link between the conflicting marks.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=305366&pageIndex=0&doclang=PL&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5153567

2. Judgment – 22/10/2025 – Danger Group v EUIPO – Heredia Casanella (Danger), Case T-482/24

– The case concerned proceedings concerning the invalidation of trademark rights.

– Danger Equipment Co. Ltd filed trademark  for goods in classes 25 (including sportswear) and 28 (including sports equipment and articles).

– On July 8, 2022, the disputed trademark was transferred to Danger Group Co. Ltd.

– Carlos Heredia Casanella filed an application to invalidate the above-mentioned trademark. He relied in particular on the Spanish figurative trademark Danger, , identical to the contested trademark and designating the same goods.

– Danger Equipment Co. Ltd claimed that the invalidity applicant had consented to the registration of the above-mentioned mark.

– However, the Cancellation Division granted the application for invalidation.

– The Board of Appeal then dismissed the appeal. The Board noted that the documents submitted by the applicant did not establish that the intervener had expressly consented to the registration of the contested mark.  Neither the name nor the signature of the intervener appeared in the document transferring ownership of the contested trademark.

– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It pointed out that the applicant had not provided any evidence to show that the intervener had given its express consent to the registration of the contested trademark.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=305365&pageIndex=0&doclang=ES&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5153567