1. Procedural Context: The Strengthened Role of the EU General Court
Since 1 May 2019, following the entry into force of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judicial architecture of EU trademark disputes has undergone a structural shift.
Under Article 58a, appeals against judgments of the EU General Court are admissible before the Court of Justice (CJEU) only where they raise an issue of fundamental importance for the unity, consistency or development of EU law. As a result:
- the General Court has effectively become the court of last instance in most EU trademark cases;
- its case law now plays a decisive role in shaping substantive trademark doctrine;
- legal certainty increasingly depends on General Court jurisprudence rather than CJEU review.
Each year, the General Court issues approximately 300 decisions relating to EUIPO opposition, invalidity and refusal proceedings.
2. Legal Framework: Absolute Grounds for Refusal under EU Law
The cornerstone provision remains Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union Trade Mark, in particular:
- Article 7(1)(b) — lack of distinctive character
- Article 7(1)(c) — descriptive signs
- Article 7(1)(d) — customary signs
- Article 7(1)(g) — deceptive signs
- Article 7(3) — acquired distinctiveness through use
Absolute grounds are examined ex officio and are designed to protect the public interest, rather than the interests of competitors or right holders.
3. Key Legal Positions in the 2025 Case Law of the General Court
3.1. Distinctive Character: Beyond Minimal Originality
In several 2025 rulings, the General Court reaffirmed that formal originality alone does not suffice to establish distinctive character.
The assessment must consider:
- the perception of the average consumer of the relevant goods or services;
- the overall impression produced by the sign;
- whether the sign performs its essential trademark function, namely indicating commercial origin.
Signs perceived primarily as promotional, informational or banal marketing expressions remain unregistrable.
Russian parallel: The Russian Intellectual Property Court (IP Court) applies a comparable standard, consistently rejecting trademarks that function as advertising slogans rather than source identifiers.
3.2. Descriptiveness: Semantic and Logical Transparency
The General Court reiterated that descriptiveness may arise not only from direct meaning, but also from:
- clear and immediate associations;
- semantic transparency;
- combinations of elements that fail to create a new, distinctive concept.
Where consumers can understand the link between the sign and product characteristics without cognitive effort, refusal under Article 7(1)(c) is justified.
Comparative note (Russia): Russian courts similarly recognise that even indirect descriptiveness may trigger refusal under Article 1483 of the Russian Civil Code.
3.3. Geographical and Quality Connotations
In 2025, the General Court continued to take a strict stance on signs suggesting:
- geographical origin;
- specific quality, reputation or characteristics of goods.
Where such indications may mislead consumers or unjustifiably restrict competition, registration is denied unless the applicant holds a legitimate legal entitlement.
EU law: Article 7(1)(g) Regulation 2017/1001
Russia: analogous refusals are regularly upheld by the IP Court in cases involving misleading geographical references.
3.4. Bad Faith and Abuse of the Trademark System
Although bad faith is more commonly addressed in invalidity proceedings, the General Court confirmed that it may be inferred from a constellation of objective factors, including:
- lack of genuine intention to use the mark;
- strategic market blocking;
- systematic filing of commercially attractive signs.
The Court accepts circumstantial evidence and economic logic as sufficient to establish bad faith.
Russian practice: The IP Court has adopted a similar approach, allowing bad faith to be proven indirectly through patterns of conduct and filing strategies.
3.5. Public Interest as the Overarching Principle
Across all examined cases, one principle remains constant: absolute grounds for refusal safeguard the public domain.
Trademark protection must not:
- remove descriptive or customary terms from free use;
- distort competition;
- grant unjustified monopolies over functional or informational signs.
This philosophy aligns closely with the doctrinal foundations of Russian trademark law.
4. Practical Implications for International Brand Owners
The 2025 General Court jurisprudence reflects an increasingly systematic and rigorous scrutiny of trademark applications, particularly:
- borderline descriptive signs;
- marketing-driven brand names;
- signs with geographic or qualitative overtones.
For businesses, this entails:
- enhanced pre-filing legal clearance;
- early planning for evidence of acquired distinctiveness;
- alignment of EU trademark strategies with global brand protection policies, including Russia.
For Russia-specific filing practice and timelines, see our Trademark Registration in the Russian Federation guidance.
5. Conclusion
The 2025 case law of the EU General Court confirms a consistent message:
A trademark is a tool of commercial identification — not a mechanism for appropriating language, geography or functional concepts.
For international companies operating across the EU and Russia, this jurisprudence provides valuable guidance for risk assessment, portfolio structuring and dispute strategy.