Draft:Rolex v EUIPO
 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 826 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Submission declined on 2 November 2025 by Ultraodan (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
 | This is a draft article. It is a work in progress open to editing by anyone. Please ensure core content policies are met before publishing it as a live Wikipedia article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Last edited by NeoGaze (talk | contribs) 15 days ago. (Update)
This draft has been submitted and is currently awaiting review. |
| Rolex v EUIPO | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided 18 January 2023 | |
| Full case name | Rolex SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| Case | T‑726/21 |
| CelexID | 62021TJ0726_INF |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:T:2023:6 |
| Case type | Review of legality of EUIPO's Board of Appeal decision |
| Ruling | |
| The General Court dismisses the action. | |
| Court composition | |
| Judge-Rapporteur Dean Spielmann | |
Rolex v EUIPO (2023) T‑726/21 was a decision of the General Court (European Union). The case concerned an opposition, initiated by Rolex, against the registration of another trade mark.[1]
Facts
[edit]On 27 November 2014, the Danish company PWT A/S, obtained an international registration (designating the European Union) of a figurative trade mark depicting a black crown. The mark was registered for the following goods: clothing, footwear, headgear.
Rolex, which already had a trade mark of a black crown (for watches), filed an opposition against the registration on two grounds:[2][3]
- There exists a likelihood of confusion between the two signs, which means that the contested sign and the earlier trade mark are identical or very similar, and are used for identical or very similar goods or services, so that the relevant public will be confused about the economic origin of the goods or service (Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, formerly Regulation No 207/2009).
- There exists an injury to the reputation of the earlier trade mark, which means that the contested sign is identical or very similar to the earlier trade mark with a reputation (irrespective of the similarity between the goods or services), and where the use of it would injure the reputation of, take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to the earlier trade mark (Article 8(5) EUTMR).
On 19 October 2020, the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) upheld the opposition, which led to PWT A/S filing an appeal.[4]
On 25 August 2021, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO changed the direction towards PWT A/S and rejected the opposition of Rolex.[5] On the first ground, the Board found that "watches" and "clothing, footwear, headgear" were dissimilar, and thus found that there was no likelihood of confusion. On the second ground, it found that there was no reputation established of the earlier purely figurative mark, only for the composite mark (a black crown together with the word ROLEX). Besides this, the Board found that the two signs were not similar, meaning that "the relevant public would not make a link between those marks, with the result that no risk of injury to the reputation of the earlier composite mark was established".[1][4]
With this rejection, Rolex decided to bring the decision of the Board before the General Court.[6][3]
Judgment
[edit]Overall, the General Court confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal.[7][8][9]
With regard to Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, the Court confirms the Board's decision on the dissimilarity of the goods at issue, meaning that there can be no likelihood of confusion.[10][6][3] It refers to various cases to express that "jewellery and watches, even precious stones, on the one hand, and items of clothing, on the other, could not be regarded as similar". The Court also clarifies that the fact the goods in question are sold in the same commercial establishments is irrelevant, and pointed out that the goods are not "competitive".[4]
With regard to Article 8(5) EUTMR, the Court determined that Rolex did not provide any evidence of an injury or injuries caused to the earlier mark.[6] An injury may take one of three forms, namely: (i) the use, without due cause, of the mark applied for is detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark; (ii) it is detrimental to the repute of the earlier mark; or (iii) it takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark.[3] The existence or possible risk of an injury is, however, one of the cumulative conditions for the application of Article 8(5).[9]
References
[edit]- ^ a b "CURIA - Documents". curia.europa.eu. Retrieved 2025-10-31.
- ^ "Regulation - 2017/1001 - EN - eutmr - EUR-Lex". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 2025-10-31.
- ^ a b c d CITMA. "Watch and learn". www.citma.org.uk. Retrieved 2025-11-02.
- ^ a b c Christy, Neale; Smith, Leigh (2023). "Watch your back - Rolex's EU opposition against CROWN device in Class 25 rejected". Entertainment Law Review. 34 (3): 3 – via Westlaw.
- ^ "eSearch Case Law - EUIPO". euipo.europa.eu. Retrieved 2025-11-01.
- ^ a b c "General Court allows Danish fashion brand to register their crown logo despite objections from Rolex | Kluwer Trademark Blog". legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com. Retrieved 2025-11-02.
- ^ "Rolex did not demonstrate that the use of a crown for clothing would damage its trade mark's reputation". EUIPO. Retrieved 2025-10-31.
- ^ International Trademark Association (March–April 2024). "Annual Review of European Trademark Law: 2023 in Review" (PDF). The Trademark Reporter. 114 (2): 155.
- ^ a b "Rolex Can't Turn Back IP Office Ruling Over Crown Logo - Law360 UK". www.law360.co.uk. Retrieved 2025-11-02.
- ^ Stein, Anna Maria. "Are watches and clothing dissimilar goods? Yes, says the GC". The IPKat. Retrieved 2025-11-02.
Category:Court of Justice of the European Union case law Category:2023 in case law Category:Trademark case law
- in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
- reliable
- secondary
- independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.