Overview of CJEU case law from 30 June to 6 July 2025
Below we present an overview of CJEU case law concerning intellectual property for the period from 30th June 2025 to 6th July 2025.
- T-1103/23 – Ferrari SpA v EUIPO – Kurt Hesse
– The case concerned proceedings for a revocation of a trademark.
– Ferrari SpA (the applicant) is the entitled party to the word trademark TESTAROSSA. The goods covered by the mark belong, i.a., to Class 12 (vehicles; devices for locomotion on land, in the air or on water; land vehicles, cars, structural and replacement parts; brakes, engines, tyres for land vehicles, bicycles, mopeds, vans, trucks).
– Kurt Hesse (intervener) filed an application for revocation of the above trademark on the grounds of lack of genuine use. The EUIPO Cancellation Division partially upheld the application but did not revoke the disputed trademark in relation to ‘cars’. The intervener appealed against that decision. The applicant also appealed against the decision in so far as it declared the trademark invalid in relation to construction parts and spare parts and engines.
– The Board of Appeal upheld the intervener’s request and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed against that decision.
– The Board of Appeal pointed out that, during the period in question, the applicant did not manufacture or distribute new cars under the disputed trademark, nor did it sell used cars bearing the trademark TESTAROSSA itself. Used cars were only sold by third parties. The applicant argued that it had received invoices confirming the sale of used cars from dealers and, in addition, provided certification services for remuneration.
– The CJEU upheld the applicant’s appeal and annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal.
– The CJEU emphasised that the fact that the proprietor of a trademark cannot prohibit third parties from using its trademark in relation to goods already placed on the market under that trademark does not mean that it cannot use it itself in relation to those goods. It pointed out that the use of an EU trademark with the consent of the owner is considered to be made by the entitled party. Consequently, it was held that the use of a trademark of a manufacturing company by authorised dealers selling used cars bearing the TESTAROSSA mark can be regarded as use of that mark with the consent of the proprietor and, therefore, as genuine use by the proprietor.
Details of the case:
- T-380/24 – Camilla and Marc Operations Pty Ltd v EUIPO – C&A AG
– The case concerned opposition proceedings (likelihood of confusion).
– Camilla and Marc Operations Pty Ltd (the applicant) applied for a device trademark: 
Class 18 (leather and imitation leather, goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; suitcases and travel bags; umbrellas, parasols; walking sticks) and 25 (in Class 25: clothing, footwear, headgear).
– C&A AG (intervener) filed an opposition to the registration of the above trademark, claiming its prior rights to the word trademark C&A for goods in Classes 18 and 25.
– The Opposition Division rejected the opposition in its entirety. The intervener appealed against this decision.
– The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal in part and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division in so far as it dismissed the intervener’s opposition in relation to goods in Class 25, finding that there was a likelihood of confusion.
– The applicant appealed against the above decision of the Board of Appeal in so far as it found that there was a likelihood of confusion. It contested the visual and phonetic similarity and claimed that the contested decision had granted the intervener a monopoly on the sign “C&”.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal. The CJEU found that, in the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the similarities outweighed the differences. It agreed with the Board of Appeal that the marks at issue were visually and phonetically similar at least to an average degree, as the difference of one letter did not indicate sufficient distinction between them and did not eliminate the likelihood of confusion on the part of the consumer.
Details of the case:
- T-402/24 – Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU v EUIPO – Grande Vitae GmbH
– The case concerned proceedings for revocation of trademark.
– Grande Vitae GmbH (intervener) obtained registration of the word mark VITAE for goods in class 33 (Alcoholic beverages, except beer).
– Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (the applicant) filed an application for revocation of the above trademark.
– The Cancellation Division upheld the application and cancelled the trademark with the exception of the subcategory of wines in class 33. The applicant filed an appeal against the above decision. The intervener also appealed against the decision of the Cancellation Division.
– The Board of Appeal found that genuine use of the contested trademark had been demonstrated in relation to the subcategory of wines, but not in relation to the other goods, and dismissed the appeals of the applicant and the intervener.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal and held that the evidence submitted by the intervener in the form of, inter alia, sales statements and invoices showed genuine use of the trademark VITAE only in relation to wines.
Details of the case:
- T-473/24 – Villafrut Srl v EUIPO – Venture Fruit Global Ltd
– The case concerned opposition proceedings.
– Venture Fruit Global Ltd (Intervener) applied for a device trademark: 
covering goods in Class 31 (agricultural products; fresh fruit and vegetables).
– Villafrut Srl (the applicant) filed an opposition to the registration of the above-mentioned trademark, based on its prior word trademark JOLIFE covering goods in Class 31 (fresh fruit and vegetables).
– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition and rejected the application for registration of the contested trademark. The intervener appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division. The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal and found that there was no likelihood of confusion.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal. It found that although the goods for which both trademarks were registered are identical, the trademarks are visually and phonetically different. The differences in the ending ‘fe’ and the graphic elements are sufficient to prevent any likelihood of confusion.
Details of the case:
- T-513/24 – Lunar Outpost Inc. v EUIPO
– The case concerned the refusal of registration of a trademark (lack of distinctive character).
– Lunar Outpost Inc. (the applicant) filed an application with EUIPO for registration of the word trademark LUNAR OUTPOST for goods and services in Classes 9, 12 and 39.
– EUIPO refused to register the trademark. The applicant filed an appeal, which was dismissed. It was found that the mark applied for was descriptive of the goods and services and lacked distinctive character.
– The Board of Appeal found that the goods and services covered by the application (in Classes 9, 12 and 39) are highly specialised and intended for professionals involved in lunar exploration, i.a. specialist scientific equipment, lunar vehicles and space transport. It was found that the public would immediately perceive the mark applied for as descriptive, as it clearly indicates the intended purpose of the goods and services related to lunar exploration.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal and agreed with the Board of Appeal that the mark applied for is descriptive.
Details of the case:
See more:
Geographical indications for craft and industrial products
For many years, geographical indications for wines and spirits, as well as agricultural products and foodstuffs, have been protected at EU level. With the entry into force of Regulation No 2023/2411 on 1 December 2025, the protection of geographical indications...
Review of CJEU case law from 15.12.2025 to 21.12.2025
Judgment - 18/12/2025 - Deity Shoes, Case C-323/24 - The case concerned preliminary questions regarding the novelty and individual character of EU designs and the impact of fashion trends on the above-mentioned conditions. - Deity Shoes claims rights to several shoe...
Copyright limits for industrial design – CJEU judgment (C-580/23 and C-795/23)
Copyright limits for industrial design – CJEU judgment (C-580/23 and C-795/23) Can a dining table or chest of drawers constitute a work protected by copyright? First of all, the work must be original in nature, understood as the author's own intellectual creation....