Articles

Ending the Year in Fashion: EU Noteworthy Fashion Trademark Cases and Trends

Author: Florina Firaru

The fashion world is shaped not only by styles, fabrics, and runways, but increasingly by battles over brand identity, disputes of authorship, and the evolving framework of intellectual property (IP) law. As 2025 draws to a close, several significant rulings of the General Court of the European Union (“GC”) highlight how reputation and genuine use remain pivotal in safeguarding the position of brands within the fashion and lifestyle sectors. Notable decisions include the following:

• Case T-425/24 (Ffauf Italia S.p.A. v EUIPO) concerns the European Union (“EU”) figurative trademark application “pastaZARA Sublime” (the “Application”) filed for food goods in class 30 (pasta) by the applicant Ffauf Italia S.p.A. The Application was opposed by Industria de Diseño Textil (“Inditex”) based on the EU word trademark ZARA, registered for goods in class 25 (clothing, among others) among others on claims concerning reputation and taking unfair advantage of/ detriment to distinctive character [Art. 8(5) of the old Community Trade Mark Regulation 40/94 [1] ].

By way of background, the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO“) upheld the opposition, concluding that use of the Application could take unfair advantage of the reputation of the trademark ZARA. This decision was confirmed by the EUIPO Board of Appeal (“BoA”) which dismissed the appeal.

Inditex appealed the decision of the BoA before the GC in relation to (i) the reputation of the ZARA trademark; (ii) the existence of a similarity between the conflicting signs; (iii) the existence of a link between those signs; and (iv) the existence of a due cause for using the Application.

The GC decided to annul the contested decision of the BoA. In the judgement of the GC of 10 September 2025, the Court confirmed that the earlier trademark ZARA had a reputation for goods in Class 25. However, it found that the BoA made some errors of assessment, as pointed out below:

• • Similarity – the signs are visually and conceptually similar, to a low degree, and phonetically similar, to an average degree. Based on their overall assessment, the BoA was wrong to conclude that the element “zara” was dominant in the Application. Further, it was held that finding that the earlier trademark has a reputation is not a relevant criterion for the comparison of the signs.
  • The GC found that there has not been established a link between the signs. The GC emphasized that the nature and the degree of closeness of the goods or services in conflict constitute factors that are relevant to assess whether a link between the trademarks exists. In this context, the GC held that although the trademark ZARA is highly reputed for goods in class 25, due to its prominent presence in stores in many cities throughout the world, this reputation does not automatically mean that consumers would associate it with pasta in class 30, which is sold in shops and supermarkets with goods under different trademarks.
  • The Applicant had due cause for using the Application given its historical ties to the Dalmatian city of Zara (now Zadar, Croatia), where it had opened a factory in the 1930s, and its longstanding use of trademarks containing “ZARA” and “pastaZARA” since the 1960s, predating Inditex’s first use of the ZARA trademark in 1975 and its 2001 application.

Note – Since the GC found no link between the signs, it was not necessary for it to assess due cause. Nevertheless, the GC considered it appropriate to examine whether the applicant had due cause for using the trademark in dispute.

• Reputation of the earlier trademark was also subject of the GC Case T-491/24 [Puma v EUIPO – CMS (CMS Italy)].
  • Within the context of an opposition between the earlier international figurative trademarks representing a feline bounding to the left (“Earlier Trademark”), for some of the goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 (mainly clothing and footwear) and the reputation [2] of the Earlier Trademark owned by Puma SE and the EU designating of the international application representing a feline bounding to the right (“Application”) filed for goods in classes 7, 11 and 37 (mainly in relation to industrial machine tools) by CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA, the Court held that BoA had erred in law when assessing the reputation of the Earlier Trademark.
  • The conflict:

• • The Opposition Division of the EUIPO rejected the opposition on the ground that the reputation of the Earlier Trademark had not been established. The decision was appealed before the BoA, the evidence on reputation was supplemented and accepted. The BoA concluded that the Earlier Trademarks had at least an average degree of reputation for sports shoes and clothing in several EU countries. However, despite this level of reputation, it rejected the opposition, finding no link or injury to the reputation of the Earlier Trademark.
  • The applicant appealed the decision of the BoA and requested the Court to annul the decision as well as to dismiss the Application. Puma SE explicitly argued that the Earlier Trademarks enjoyed a very high degree of reputation.
  • The Court examined the strength of the reputation of the Earlier Trademark. According to the judgement, it held that the BoA failed to follow settled case law by basing its assessment on a “vague hypothesis.” Where the Board uses formulations such as “at least” or “at most,” it must either determine the precise degree of reputation or expressly consider the best-case scenario for the party whose evidence on reputation was discounted.
  • Because the BoA did not take into account the most favourable scenario for Puma, the Court found that it erred in law in deciding the appropriate degree of that reputation and annulled its latest decision in its entirety.

Note – It was also held that the Court can only review legality, not reassess reputation. Therefore, the case was remitted to the BoA for an overall assessment of the existence of a link between the signs in conflict. Therefore, the proceedings have not yet reached the stage of assessing whether Puma SE suffered or is likely to suffer harm as a result of the use of the Application.

• On another note, in Case T‑118/24, Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2025 – Vila Tobella v EUIPO – Raphael Europe (ROZALIYA jewelry for enlightenment) the Court dealt with revocation proceedings against an EU trademark for jewellery (class 14).
  • In this case, EUIPO partially rejected the action, finding that genuine use had been established for certain goods. The applicant alleged errors of assessment made by the BoA in its examination of the evidence of use with regard to (i) the nature of the use of the contested trademark, (ii) invoices demonstrating sales outside the EU, and (iii) the extent of use.
  • The Court dismissed the action in its entirety:
    • The GC upheld the EUIPO’s assessment, finding that the evidence (invoices and screenshots of the webpages in social media containing advertisements and of proprietor’s dedicated website) was sufficient to establish that the trademark had been effectively, consistently and stably present on the market in relation to the goods at issue.
    • Nature of use: It was held that even though the trademark is not affixed to the goods themselves, the evidence (i.e. invoices, and the stamp bearing the trademark) establishes the link between the use of the trademark and the marketing of the goods in class 14.
    • In this case, most evidence related to use within the EU. The invoices demonstrating sales outside the European Union should be interpreted as [relating to the] export from [the European Union] of goods with the [contested] trademark.
    • The trademark whose revocation was requested concerns mainly relatively expensive hand-crafted goods; the evidence submitted is capable of demonstrating that, despite the relatively low number of product units sold under the contested trademark, the use of that trademark is in accordance with its essential function and constitutes genuine use.

Conclusion

2025 has demonstrated that in fashion, as elsewhere, brand identity isn’t only about creativity, but also about legal strategy. The recent rulings by the Court reinforce that trademark protection is a dynamic field. When new trademark applications are challenged, reputation remains a central factor across the applicable conditions. The outcome depends significantly on the strength of the earlier trademark’s reputation, the similarity between the trademarks and the factual and legal context.

For brand owners, proactive portfolio audits, documented use, and clearance searches remain essential for safeguarding protection.

____________________________

[1] The wording of which is substantively the same with that of the current Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, in force (EUTMR).

[2] Based on the provisions of Article 8(5) EUTMR.