Genuine use of a European Union trademark (EUTM) is a fundamental condition for maintaining the rights granted by its registration. In its judgment of 5 March 2025 (Case T-118/24), the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) clarified the scope of this notion, as well as the EUIPO’s obligation to provide special motivation. This article outlines the legal framework and practical implications of the ruling for trademark holders and IP professionals.

Genuine use of an EU trademark : legal framework and key issues

The rights attached to an EU trademark (EUTM), governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, are conditional upon its use. If the trademark is not put to genuine use within five years of registration, it may be revoked (Art. 58(1)(a)).

Use is considered genuine when it is effective, actual, and consistent with market practices. It must go beyond merely token use and must not be designed solely to preserve the registration. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Sunrider/OHIM (C-416/04) confirmed that even limited use may qualify as genuine if it reflects the commercial reality of the relevant market.

Accepted forms of evidence include :

  • Invoices and purchase orders
  • Advertising materials
  • Screenshots from websites and social media
  • Documents showing the trademark affixed to products or packaging

The use must take place within the EU and relate to the goods or services actually registered.

The EUIPO’s obligation to provide a special motivation

Under Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the EUIPO must issue clear, complete and comprehensible justification for its decisions. This requirement serves two purposes :

  • To enable the parties to understand and, if necessary, challenge the decision
  • To allow the Union courts to exercise judicial review over its legality

A failure to provide proper reasoning may result in  the decision being overturned, especially where the Board of Appeal overlooks key arguments or fails to substantiate its conclusions based on the evidence submitted.

General Court Judgment of 5 March 2025 (T-118/24) : background and significance

In this case, revocation proceedings were initiated against an EUTM registered in Class 14 (jewellery). The EUIPO partially rejected the application, finding that genuine use had been established for certain goods. The applicant then appealed to the General Court, arguing :

  • That the evidence submitted did not establish genuine use
  • That the EUIPO failed to provide adequate reasoning

a) Evidence of use

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s assessment. Genuine use was demonstrated by :

  • 112 invoices, including 64 for Class 14 products
  • Screenshots of advertisements on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter
  • A commercial presentation of the trademark on the owner’s website

Even though the trademark was not physically affixed to the products, these materials were sufficient to demonstrate a link between the mark and the commercialisation of the goods. The Court reaffirmed that the volume of sales must be assessed in context : low sales figures may still indicate genuine use where the products are expensive or niche.

b) Export-only use

Regarding sales outside the EU, the Court recalled the strict requirement of Article 18(1)(b) : the mark must appear on the products or packaging when used solely for export purposes.

In this case, however, most evidence related to use within the EU. As such, the EUIPO’s failure to assess the export-related requirement had no bearing on the outcome.

c) Alleged lack of reasoning

The applicant further argued that the EUIPO had failed to :

  • Explain how the evidence established use within the EU despite being linked to exports
  • Address the claim that the mark had only been used for retail services (Class 35)

The Court dismissed both arguments :

  • The retail services argument had not been raised during the EUIPO proceedings and could not be invoked for the first time on appeal
  • Any lack of reasoning on export-related evidence was immaterial, as genuine use within the EU had been amply demonstrated

 

Practical takeaways for trademark holders

This judgment underscores key compliance requirements for maintaining EUTM rights :

  • Maintain detailed documentation : invoices, marketing materials, and digital records can collectively establish a pattern of genuine use
  • Ensure EU relevance : use must be traceable to the internal market
  • Tailor your evidentiary strategy to the market : in luxury or high-value sectors, a small number of sales may suffice if consistent with industry norms

The ruling also sends a clear message to the EUIPO : decisions must be reasoned with precision, particularly when assessing the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

Conclusion

Judgment T-118/24 reinforces two core principles in EU trademark law : a demanding yet contextual interpretation of genuine use, and the requirement of special motivations.

For trademark owners, this is a reminder to anticipate non-use challenges by systematically gathering and preserving use-related evidence. For IP practitioners, the case highlights the strategic value of invoking a failure to state reasons, although such a flaw will only be decisive where it materially affects the outcome.

 

Key takeaway : To preserve their rights, EUTM owners must demonstrate genuine economic use within the EU. At the same time, all EUIPO decisions must be properly reasoned to ensure effective judicial protection.

 

Dreyfus & associés advises clients in the preparation of relevant evidence of use, as well as in managing proceedings before the EUIPO and European courts. With in-depth experience in trademark law, the firm provides strategic support at every stage to secure intellectual property rights and anticipate litigation risks.

Dreyfus & associés is partnered with a global network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property law.

Join us on social media !

LinkedIn  

Instagram

FAQ 

1. What qualifies as genuine use of an EU trademark?

Genuine use refers to actual, consistent, and commercially relevant use of the trademark in the European Union. It must reflect a real intent to maintain or create market share for the goods or services covered by the registration. Mere token use or internal use within a company does not suffice.

2. What types of evidence are accepted by the EUIPO?

Acceptable evidence may include invoices, purchase orders, advertising materials, screenshots of websites or social media accounts, product catalogues, and documentation demonstrating how the mark is used in relation to the marketed goods or services. The evidence must relate to the relevant period and territory.

3. Is it necessary to show use in several EU Member States?

Not necessarily. Use in a single Member State may be sufficient, provided it is not negligible and reflects a real commercial presence in the relevant market. The overall economic context and nature of the goods or services are key factors in this assessment.