Five key 2025 trademark judgments from the EU general court

In most cases, the General Court is the final level of appeal for EU trademark disputes. Olivier Lombardo of Dennemeyer & Associates analyses five of the most compelling decisions from this year so far.

Since Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) came into force on May 1, 2019, to relieve judicial duplication, the General Court of the European Union has solidified its role as the final decision-maker in almost all trademark appeals for which it is competent.

The General Court publishes approximately 300 judgments in European Union trademark (EUTM) cases each year, arising from opposition and cancellation actions at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

These judgments cover topics such as distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, bad faith and genuine use. Here, we examine five thoughtprovoking rulings on absolute grounds of refusals from the first seven months of 2025, which are likely to be of general interest to trademark practitioners in Europe.

Descriptive characters of geographical terms

Cases T-105/23 and T-106/23: Iceland Foods

The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal in two cases concerning word and figurative EUTMs incorporating the word “Iceland”.

The marks were registered for a range of goods and services by Iceland Foods, a British supermarket chain.

In 2016, Promote Iceland, a marketing agency under the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, filed an application to invalidate the marks, which was upheld by the EUIPO Cancellation Division and by the Grand Board of Appeal.

In its T-105/23 judgment, published on July 16, 2025, the General Court stated that a sign may be refused registration on the basis that it is descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No. 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) if the geographical name applied for is associated in the mind of the relevant public with the germane category of goods and services, or it is reasonable to assume that such an association may come to be.

To establish whether or not this applies, account must be taken of all the pertinent circumstances “such as the nature of the goods or services designated, the greater or lesser reputation, especially within the economic sector involved, of the geographical location in question and the relevant public’s greater or lesser familiarity with it, the customs obtaining in the area of activity concerned and the question to what extent the geographical origin of the goods or services at issue may be relevant, in the view of the persons concerned, to the assessment of the quality or other characteristics of the goods or services concerned”.

The court concluded that, for each of the goods and services covered, the marks had a descriptive character.

Together with that of T-106/23, the judgment affirmed the decisiveness of assessing in detail how the class of persons in point would perceive trademarks that include or comprise geographical terms.

Essential characteristics of a shape mark

Cases T-1170/23, T-1171/23, T-1172/23 and T-1173/23: Spin Master Toys UK

In four cases, the General Court upheld decisions that EUTMs for the shape of the Rubik’s Cube were invalid for “toys, games, playthings and jigsaw puzzles, three dimensional puzzles; electronic games; hand-held electronic games” in class 28 and for certain services in classes 35 and 41 on the ground that they had been registered contrary to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

This precludes the registration of signs that consist exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result.

This exclusion applies if all the “essential characteristics” of the shape are functional after this fashion.

The court held that the six colours on the faces of the cube and their “specific arrangement” did not constitute an essential characteristic of the mark as they were “of minor and secondary importance in relation to the cube shape, the grid structure and the differentiation of the faces of the cube, namely the fact that those faces are distinguishable”.

The court also found that the concept of “shape” in Article 7(1)(e) (ii) should not be interpreted “in an excessively narrow manner”.

Given that the mark was registered as a shape mark, the court concluded: “the third essential characteristic of that mark, namely the differentiation of the small squares on each face of the cube by means of six basic colours […] is inherent in and inseparable from the shape represented and […] forms an integral part of that shape.”

“The opinion across the four cases follows a 2016 CJEU judgment (Case C-30/15) finding that a trademark for the shape of the Rubik’s Cube (without colours) was invalid.

Distinctiveness of colour combinations

Case T-38/24: OMV

In a judgment on June 11, 2025, the General Court upheld a finding that an international trademark registration for a blue-green colour combination designating the EU was devoid of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b).

OMV had applied to register the mark for various goods and services in classes 1, 4, 35 and 37. When assessing the distinctiveness of a colourcombination trademark, it is essential to consider all applicable factors, particularly the arrangement of the colours within the mark and the prevailing market practices in the relevant industry.

Hence, the General Court noted that to be registrable, a colour combination “must contain elements capable of distinguishing it from other colour combinations and of attracting the consumer’s attention”.

The Board of Appeal had previously found that green and blue were both commonly used to represent the environment.

Bearing out that determination, the court ruled that “even though the colours blue and green may convey meanings not related to ecology or the environment, that does not alter the fact that the mark applied for is incapable of conveying specific information concerning the origin of the goods and services at issue”.

Distinctiveness of figurative marks

Case T-400/24: MercedesBenz Group

On March 19, 2025, the General Court upheld a finding that a figurative EUTM application filed by Mercedes-Benz lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) for “motor vehicles and parts thereof; pneumatic tyres and wheels” in class 12.

The court delivered that the EUIPO Board of Appeal had rightly ascertained that the mark applied for corresponded to a “usual representation of an all-terrain vehicle climbing a hill”, and did not contain any message or element likely to be remembered by the consumer as a reference to the commercial origin of the goods concerned.

The judgment affirms the EUIPO’s strict approach to differentiability for figurative marks and reiterates that for marks comprising the image or outline of a product, distinctiveness arises only when the mark departs significantly from industry norms or expectations.

Distinctiveness of position marks

Case T‑195/24: VistaJet

In the VistaJet ruling of February 5, 2025, the General Court maintained that an EUTM application for a position mark running nose to tail along the centre of an airplane’s fuselage was devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b).

The description of the applied-for mark detailed a horizontal red stripe on a silver fuselage, passing above the wings. The application covered services such as air transport by means of private aircraft and transport of passengers and/or goods by air by means of private aircraft in class 39.

Confirming the Board of Appeal’s decision, the court resolved that “in the absence of elements capable of distinguishing it in such a way that it does not appear as a simple geometrical figure, the red line cannot fulfil an identifying function with respect to the services in question.”

The court remarked that though the colour red is highly noticeable, striking and commonly used for decorative or attention-grabbing purposes, this inherent quality worked against its distinctive character.

Similarly, the silver fuselage did not stand out sufficiently from the colour white, which is conventionally used in aviation.

Consequently, the mark did not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector to reach the required level of distinctive character. Position marks are characterised by the specific way in which the mark is placed or affixed on the goods and must be represented by a reproduction showing its situation and size or proportion in relation to the product.

However, they remain rare in Europe: as of July 2025, just 634 had been filed, representing 0.02% of all EUTM applications.

Takeaways