Overview of CJEU case law from 9 June to 15 June 2025
Below we present an overview of CJEU case law in intellectual property matters for the period from 9 June 2025 to 15 June 2025.
1. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – OMV v EUIPO, Case file T-38/24
– The case concerned proceedings for refusal of registration on the grounds of lack of distinctive character.
– OMV AG (supported by INTA and Marques), relying on the priority of Austrian trademark no. 12685/2020, filed on 23 November 2020, applied for international registration designating the European Union for a figurative mark representing the following combination of colours:
Class 1: ‘Chemical preparations for use as additives for fuels to improve combustion; chemical additives for motor fuels; hydrogen’;
Class 4: ‘Fuels; non-chemical additives for fuels; lighting materials; electricity; lubricants; industrial oils’
Class 35: i.a. Retail services in relation to vehicle equipment;
Class 37: i.a. Construction, construction or demolition of facilities or installations for exploration, fuels
– EUIPO rejected the application and the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that the mark applied for could not convey a clear message to the relevant public in relation to the goods and services at issue, but could be perceived as a decorative element, and therefore the mark applied for was devoid of distinctive character.
– The CJEU dismissed the action. It pointed out, i.a., that the colours blue and green are commonly used, in various shades or in various combinations, on the relevant market. The applicant’s argument that other colours are also used on the petrol station market and that it is the only company to use the specific two-colour combination at issue is not capable of undermining that finding. The mere fact that the shades and combination of colours in the trademark applied for are not exactly the same as those used on the relevant market does not allow it to be concluded that the relevant public will perceive the trademark applied for as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services at issue (the evidence submitted by the applicant does not confirm that the trademark applied for contained elements capable of distinguishing it from other colour combinations on the market in question).
Details of the case:
2. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – Fattorie Garofalo – Società Cooperativa Agricola v EUIPO – Pastificio Lucio Garofalo (fattorie garofalo), Case file T-1036/23
– The case concerned opposition proceedings (reputation of a prior mark).
– Fattorie Garofalo – Società Cooperativa Agricola applied for a device trademark 
in class 43, i.a. for the supply of food and beverages; restaurant services; mobile restaurant services; takeaway food services.
– Pastificio Lucio Garofalo SpA filed an opposition to the registration, which was based on several prior rights, i.a. on a device trademark
in class 30, i.a. Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, tapioca rice, sago, synthetic coffee; flour and cereal preparations, bread, confectionery and pastry products, edible ice cream; honey, molasses; yeast, baking powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); condiments; ice; gluten (food).
– The above-mentioned mark enjoys a reputation in particular in relation to: flour and preparations based on cereals; sauces (condiments).
– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition on the basis of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
– The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal. It pointed out that: (i) the element “garofalo” is the most distinctive element of the trademark applied for, and the word element “fattorie” and the figurative element of the trademark applied for were not capable of offsetting the visual and phonetic similarity between the conflicting marks; (ii) there is a risk that the use of the mark applied for could make it easier to market the applicant’s restaurant services, so that the latter would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the prior mark; (iii) the applicant did not prove that it had used the contested mark before the registration of the reputable mark.
Details of the case:
3. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – Nio v EUIPO – Audi (ES6), Case file T-598/23
– The case concerned proceedings for the invalidity of a trademark on the grounds of likelihood of confusion.
– Audi AG filed an application with EUIPO for invalidation of the word mark ES6 registered for goods in class 12 (i.a. for sports cars; cars; engines for vehicles) based on the prior EU word mark S6, registered for goods in class 12.
– The Cancellation Division dismissed the application for invalidation on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion.
– The Board of Appeal found that there was a likelihood of confusion in relation to all goods and annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal. It pointed out that the trademarks are visually and phonetically similar on average degree. It did not agree with the argument that, in the motor vehicle sector, the visual perception of a conflicting trademark is more important than its phonetic perception.
Details of the case:
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=301130&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4590502 similar case https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=301129&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4590502
4. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – KenWave Solutions v EUIPO (DYNAMIC RESPONSE IMAGING), Case file T-505/24
– The case concerned the refusal of registration on the grounds that the mark was descriptive.
– KenWave Solutions Inc. applied for registration of the word mark DYNAMIC RESPONSE IMAGING for goods and services (Class 9, i.a. Surface vibroacoustic wave sensors; flow detectors; Class 37, i.a. Sewage cleaning, inspection, repair, replacement and maintenance services; Class 42: i.a. Advisory services in the field of material testing; consulting in the field of acoustics, sound, noise and vibration for scientific purposes).
– EUIPO rejected the application due to its descriptive character, and the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
– CJEU dismissed the appeal. The words “dynamic response imaging” as a whole constitute a simple combination of three English words which complies with English grammatical rules and will be easily and immediately understood by the relevant public. Those words are unlikely to produce an impression sufficiently remote from that produced by the simple juxtaposition of the indications given by the elements “dynamic”, ‘response’ and ‘imaging’, and the public will immediately and without further reflection consider the sign applied for to be descriptive of the characteristics of the goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42.
Details of the case:
5. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – SHS v EUIPO (Pure Steel+), Case file T-462/24
– The case concerned the refusal of registration on the grounds of the descriptive character of the mark.
– SHS – Stahl-Holding-Saar GmbH & Co. KGaA applied for registration of the following device mark:
in classes 6 (i.a. base metals and their alloys, ores), 7 (machines), 8 (tools), 11 (steam generating apparatus), 12 (vehicles and vehicle parts), 37 (construction services), 40 (metal treatment) and 42 (consultancy and information services, in particular relating to CO2 savings in steel production).
– EUIPO rejected the application for registration on the grounds of its descriptive character, and the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal. The descriptive character was not affected by the sign ‘+’, which would be perceived by the relevant public as a sign linking the words ‘pure’ and ‘steel’ or as emphasising the word ‘pure’.
Details of the case:
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=301136&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4584154 similar case https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=301135&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4584154
6. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – CeramicSpeed Sport v EUIPO – Golec (OSPW System), Case fileT-352/24
– The case concerned proceedings for the invalidity of the OSPW System trade mark in respect of Class 7: i.a. pulleys, including pulleys, and Class 12: i.a. parts and accessories for land vehicles, registered in favour of CeramicSpeed Sport A/S on the grounds of its descriptive character.
– The Cancellation Division rejected the application.
– The Board of Appeal upheld the appeal in part. It found that the evidence submitted by the intervener showed that the word mark OSPW System for bicycle parts and accessories was descriptive. It therefore found that the mark was not descriptive only for goods not related to bicycles (it accepted the argument that ‘ospw’ is an abbreviation of ‘oversized pulley wheels’).
– The CJEU dismissed the appeal.
Details of the case:
7. Judgement dated 11/06/2025 – Coinbase v EUIPO – bitFlyer (coinbase), Case file T-46/24
– The case concerned the invalidation of a trademark on the grounds of bad faith.
– bitFlyer Inc. filed an application for the word mark coinbase (classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42) (international application, the mark was registered).
– Coinbase, Inc. filed an application for invalidation of the above trademark on the grounds of identity and likelihood of confusion with the prior trademark COINBASE (classes 9, 36 and 42) and on the grounds of bad faith.
– The Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal partially upheld the application for invalidity in respect of similar/identical goods and services. No bad faith was found.
– The CJEU dismissed the action. The following factors were taken into account: the applicant was probably unaware of the existence of the prior mark (used mainly in the US and Japan); it was not proven that the applicant intended to prevent the entitled party from extending its activities to goods and services other than the bitcoin wallet and bitcoin exchange activities and to take advantage of the applicant’s reputation or damage that reputation by offering goods and services of poor quality.
– According to the CJEU, the applicant did not provide relevant and consistent evidence showing that the proprietor of the contested international registration had applied for registration not for the purposes of fair competition, but with the intention of infringing, in a manner contrary to honest practices, the interests of third parties or to obtain, even without reference to a specific third party, the exclusive right for purposes other than those within the scope of the trademark’s functions, in particular the essential function of indicating the origin of goods and services.
Case details:
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....