Overview of CJEU case law from 24.11 to 30.11.2025
Review of CJEU case law from 24/11/2025 to 30/11/2025
- EFFAS v EUIPO – CFA Institute (CEFA EFFAS Certified European Financial Analyst), Case T-632/24
– The case concerned proceedings concerning an opposition to the registration of a trademark.
– EFFAS filed a word-figurative trademark 
for goods/services in class 9 (including applications, books and electronic goods), 16 (including printed matter, writing materials), 41 (including educational services).
– CFA Institute filed an opposition against the registration of the above-mentioned mark based on the earlier word mark CFA registered for goods/services in classes 16, 41 and 42. The basis for the objection was the risk of misleading consumers and damage to reputation.
– The EUIPO Opposition Division upheld the opposition in part based on the risk of misleading the public.
– The Appeals Chamber upheld the appeal. It found that there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, in relation to all goods and services except „stationery; writing instruments; writing materials” in Class 16. It found an average degree of visual similarity, a high degree of phonetic similarity and a lack of conceptual similarity, as well as enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark. It therefore indicated that a likelihood of confusion could not be ruled out in the present case, despite the high level of attention of the relevant public.
– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It agreed with the Board of Appeal that, despite the presence of additional elements in the trademark applied for, the conflicting signs showed average visual similarity. It indicated that the phonetic similarity was high. The applicant did not dispute the assessment of the similarity of the goods and services. Ultimately, the CJEU found that in this case there was a risk of misleading the public and therefore the opposition was justified.
Case details:
- SiLog v EUIPO – Silog (Si Log International), Case T-572/24
– The case concerned proceedings to invalidate a trademark due to the risk of misleading consumers.
– SiLog GmbH is entitled to the word-figurative trademark: 
registered for services in class 39, i.e. „transport of goods„.
– Silog SAS filed an application for invalidation of the above-mentioned trademark due to the risk of confusion among consumers and similarity to the earlier word trademark SILOG registered for services in class 36, i.e. „rental of commercial vehicles„.
– The EUIPO Invalidity Division upheld the invalidity application.
– The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. It found that the invalidity applicant had provided relevant evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark and that there was a risk of misleading the public.
– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. He agreed that the services in question could be aimed at the same audience of professionals, have the same purpose and meet the same needs, and were therefore similar. The CJEU emphasised that the applicant had not explained why the element “si” should be considered descriptive of the services at issue. In this case, an average degree of visual similarity, a high degree of phonetic similarity and neutral conceptual similarity were found. It was found that there was a risk of misleading consumers and therefore the application for invalidation was justified.
Case details:
- Lavrentiadis v EUIPO – Dalli-Werke (DALL), Case T-515/24
– The case concerned proceedings concerning an opposition to the registration of a mark due to the likelihood of confusion.
– Lavrentios Lavrentiadis filed a registration for the word mark DALL for goods in class 3 of the Nice Classification (including cleaning cloths impregnated with detergent, cleaning preparations).
– Dalli-Werke GmbH & Co. KG filed an opposition against the registration of the trademark applied for, which was based on the earlier word mark DALLI registered in Class 3 (for, among others, bleaching agents, perfumes).
– The EUIPO Opposition Division upheld the opposition in its entirety.
– The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public in relation to the goods in Class 3.
– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It pointed out that the difference within a single letter does not constitute a significant difference and does not create a different overall visual impression, and therefore the conflicting marks are at least visually similar to an average degree. It was indicated that the phonetic similarity was average, even though the signs had a different number of syllables. However, it was not possible to analyze conceptual similarity. Due to the fact that the goods in Class 3 indicated in the applications for both marks were similar or identical, a risk of misleading the public was found.
Case details:
See more:
Review of CJEU case law from 2.02.2026 to 6.02.2026
Judgment of 5 February 2026, EUIPO v Nowhere Co. Ltd, Case C‑337/22 P – The case concerned opposition proceedings relating to the application for registration of the EU figurative trade mark APE TEES: – On 30 June 2015, Mr Ye filed an application for an EU trade...
Review of CJEU case law from 26.01.2026 to 30.01.2026
Judgment – of 28 January 2026 – Montepelayo, SLU v. EUIPO, Case T-203/25– The case concerned opposition proceedings against the registration of an EU word mark. – Montepelayo, SLU filed an EU word mark application for TELOTRÓN for goods and services in Classes 5...
Review of CJEU case law from 19.01.2026 to 23.01.2026
Hesse v EUIPO – 19.01.2026 – Ferrari (TESTAROSSA), Case C‑597/25 P– The case concerned the procedure under Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice for determining whether an appeal against a judgment of the General Court in EU trade mark proceedings should...