Judgment – June 10th, 2026 – Global Rice EOOD v EUIPO, Case T‑283/25

– The case concerned invalidity proceedings against an EU trade mark based on an earlier non-registered sign.

– Global Rice EOOD filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of an EU figurative mark depicting a sun and Arabic characters, registered for goods in Class 30 (rice-based food products):

– The application was based on an earlier non-registered Bulgarian figurative mark allegedly used in the course of trade in relation to rice:

– The legal basis was Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 (earlier signs other than registered trade marks).

– The Cancellation Division rejected the application in its entirety.

– The Fifth Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that one of the four cumulative conditions under Article 8(4) had not been satisfied, namely that the applicable national law must confer on the proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a later mark.

– The Board of Appeal held that, under Bulgarian law, a non-registered mark must be used in the course of trade within the territory of Bulgaria. It found that use solely for export purposes does not satisfy that requirement.

– It noted that the evidence of use showed only exports of rice from Bulgaria to various countries (including Germany, Kuwait, Romania and Sweden). It further held that EU provisions recognising export use as use apply only to registered trade marks, not to non-registered signs.

– In light of Bulgarian case-law, the Board of Appeal concluded that a non-registered mark used exclusively for export cannot be relied on to oppose or invalidate a later mark.

– The General Court dismissed the action. It confirmed that the conditions of Article 8(4) are cumulative and that two of them (acquisition and scope of the right) must be assessed under national law.

– The Court held that the proprietor of the earlier sign must prove both the content of the applicable national law and compliance with its requirements. It agreed that Bulgarian law requires actual use of a non-registered mark within Bulgarian territory.

– The Court confirmed that the case-law relied on by the applicant concerned registered marks and was not applicable to non-registered signs. It also confirmed that EU and national provisions recognising export use as sufficient apply only to registered marks.

– As regards the Bulgarian judgment of 16 September 2020, the Court held that it clearly distinguishes between registered and non-registered marks and excludes the export-use exception for the latter.

– The Court found that the EU nature of the contested mark is irrelevant for assessing national-law conditions.

– It concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the fourth condition under Article 8(4) (right to prohibit use of a later mark) was satisfied.

– Given the cumulative nature of the conditions, the Court held that there was no need to examine the remaining requirements.

– The action was thus dismissed in its entirety.

Case details: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62025TJ0283

Judgment – June 10th, 2026 – Wazdan Innovations ltd. v EUIPO, Case T‑673/25

– The case concerned opposition proceedings against the registration of an EU word mark.

– Wazdan Innovations ltd. filed an EU word mark application for CLUSTER COLLECTOR for goods and services in Classes 9, 28, 41 and 42 (including software, gaming products, gambling and IT services).

– Push Gaming Product ltd. filed an opposition based on the earlier EU word mark THE COLLECTOR, registered for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 relating to software and the gaming and gambling sector.

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

– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition in large part and refused registration for most of the contested goods and services, except for certain items in Classes 9, 28 and 41.

– The First Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a likelihood of confusion for all remaining contested goods and services.

– It found that the relevant public consisted of both the general public and professionals in the European Union, with a level of attention ranging from average to high.

– It held that the goods and services were partly identical and partly similar, in particular due to their functions, complementarity and shared distribution channels.

– It found that the element “collector” was distinctive and common to both signs, whereas “the” was non-distinctive and “cluster” was weakly distinctive (descriptive in the gaming context).

– Consequently, it concluded that the signs were visually and phonetically similar to an average degree and conceptually similar to at least an average degree.

– The General Court dismissed the action. It first held that the reasoning of the Board of Appeal met the requirements of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.

– The Court confirmed the findings regarding the relevant public and its level of attention.

– It upheld the assessment of similarity of goods and services, noting in particular the complementarity between software and hardware and the convergence between physical and digital gaming markets.

– It also confirmed the similarity between services relating to the organisation of sporting events and gambling services, based on their shared public, distribution channels and practical links (e.g. sponsorship and betting activities).

– As regards the comparison of the signs, the Court confirmed that “collector” is distinctive, whereas “cluster” is descriptive and weakly distinctive and “the” is non-distinctive.

– It held that weak or non-distinctive elements have a limited impact on the overall impression and that the common element “collector” plays a key role in the similarity assessment.

– The Court found that the signs are visually and phonetically similar to an average degree and conceptually similar to at least an average degree, as both evoke the idea of a “collector”.

– It confirmed that the earlier mark has an average degree of distinctiveness and that the applicant failed to show that the element “collector” had been diluted through widespread use.

– In the global assessment, the Court held that the similarity of the signs and the identity or similarity of the goods and services lead to a likelihood of confusion, despite a potentially high level of attention.

– The Court rejected the applicant’s arguments based on previous case-law and EUIPO decision-making practice, stressing the need for case-by-case assessment.

– The action was dismissed in its entirety.

Case details: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62025TJ0673