1. Judgment of the General Court of 22 October 2025

The General Court’s judgment of 22 October 2025 in Puma SE v EUIPO & CMS offers one of the most comprehensive clarifications in recent years on the methodology that must guide the European Union Intellectual Property Office in assessing oppositions based on Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. Although the case centres on Puma’s attempt to prevent the registration of a figurative mark “CMS Italy” for industrial equipment and services far removed from sports goods, the significance of the ruling lies not in the commercial distance between the parties’ goods, but in the Court’s rigorous articulation of EUIPO’s procedural obligations when evaluating the reputation of an earlier mark.

Particularly, the judgment solidifies the principle that when EUIPO employs open-ended formulations such as “at least” to describe a degree of reputation, it must articulate explicitly whether the evidence before it could support a higher degree of reputation and must evaluate that more favourable scenario where it is claimed by the party relying on the earlier mark. This principle reflects not only a duty to give reasons but also a deeper duty of diligence owed by EUIPO in reputation-based opposition proceedings.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute arose when, in 2012, CMS designated the European Union for protection of International Registration No. 1 150 538, consisting of a figurative sign containing the wording “CMS Italy,” in connection with machinery for manufacturing heat exchangers, HVAC systems, and related installation and repair services in Classes 7, 11, and 37. Puma opposed the designation in 2013, relying on two of its well-known figurative international registrations depicting the leaping puma silhouette, protected across numerous Member States for leather goods, sporting apparel, sporting footwear, and related equipment. Puma submitted that both earlier marks enjoyed a substantial and long-standing reputation, especially for sporting footwear and sports clothing, and that the use of the contested CMS mark would, without due cause, damage the distinctive character or repute of the earlier marks.

What followed is a procedural trajectory that is exceptional both in length and complexity. The Opposition Division rejected the opposition in 2014, finding that Puma had not established reputation. The Second Board of Appeal upheld that decision in 2016, only for the General Court to annul it in 2019, holding that EUIPO had erroneously ignored prior decisions and improperly declared evidence submitted on appeal inadmissible. A second round before the Fourth Board of Appeal ended in 2020 with yet another dismissal, which the General Court annulled in 2022, identifying serious omissions in the assessment of the evidence of reputation and criticising EUIPO for disregarding one of the two earlier marks on the sole basis that it shared a lower degree of similarity with the contested sign.

After being remitted for a third time, the Fifth Board of Appeal in 2024 recognised that Puma’s marks possessed “at least” an average level of reputation in several Member States for sports footwear and sports clothing. However, it nevertheless dismissed the appeal on the basis that no link would be established by the relevant public between the marks at issue and that, even assuming such a link, Puma had not demonstrated unfair advantage or detriment. This third dismissal prompted Puma to bring the matter once more before the General Court, culminating in the 2025 judgment.

3. Legal Framework under Article 8(5)

Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 establishes enhanced protection for earlier marks that enjoy a reputation, even where the goods and services covered by the contested mark are dissimilar. This protection is conditional upon three cumulative elements: the similarity between the marks, the existence of a reputation of the earlier mark in the relevant territory, and a risk that use of the contested sign without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier mark.

No. 1150538

EU jurisprudence has further developed the notion that establishing a “link” between the marks, namely, a mental association on the part of the relevant public, is a necessary intermediate step for determining whether injury is likely. Within this analytical structure, the degree of reputation plays a decisive role, as a stronger reputation increases the likelihood that even dissimilar goods may be associated in the mind of the consumer.

4. Analysis of the General Court

4.1. The Centrality of Reputation in the Legal Test

From the outset of its analysis, the General Court underscores that reputation is not a passive or ancillary factor, but a dynamic and integral one. Its strength influences both the likelihood that the relevant public will form a link between the marks and the likelihood that such a link will cause injury. A mark of exceptionally strong reputation can exert a cognitive pull that transcends product categories, thereby magnifying the potential for association even in the absence of strong visual similarity. Thus, EUIPO cannot approach the assessment of reputation as a mere threshold condition; it must evaluate it with precision, proportionality, and sensitivity to the evidence presented.

4.2. The Defect in EUIPO’s Characterisation of Reputation

The crux of the Court’s reasoning lies in its critique of the Board of Appeal’s finding that Puma’s marks possessed “at least an average degree of reputation.” While the formulation acknowledges that the degree of reputation may, in theory, be higher, the Board did not explain whether it examined the possibility that the reputation was, in fact, high or very high. The General Court stresses that such a formulation cannot be left floating without explicit clarification.

Because Puma had consistently argued for a very high degree of reputation and had submitted extensive evidence to support that contention, the Board had an obligation to consider whether this assertion was justified on the basis of the evidence. By relying instead on the minimal possible degree of reputation implicit in “at least average,” without articulating whether the evidence supported a higher level, the Board deprived its subsequent assessment, both of the link and of the potential injury, of the analytical foundation required by law.

No. 593 987

This omission is not merely a gap in reasoning but a legal error. The Court observes that when EUIPO chooses open-ended language like “at least” or “at most,” it is bound to examine the scenario that is most favourable to the party adversely affected by the assessment, in this case, Puma. The examination must be explicit, reasoned, and visible in the decision itself. It cannot be presumed, implied, or reconstructed after the fact through interpretive generosity. Where EUIPO fails to undertake such an examination, it violates the duty of diligence and, consequently, undermines the legality of the entire decision.

4.3. Rejection of EUIPO’s Attempt to Rely on Implicit Reasoning

EUIPO argued that the Board had “implicitly yet necessarily” considered the possibility of a higher degree of reputation and that such consideration could be inferred from the overall analysis. The Court unequivocally rejects this notion. It reiterates that implicit reasoning is inadequate in the context of Article 8(5), where the degree of reputation is not merely one factor among many, but a factor that can change the entire outcome of the analysis. Only explicit reasoning ensures transparency, enables proper judicial review, and provides the affected party with the certainty required by principles of good administration.

4.4. Distinguishing the Case from Prior Jurisprudence

The Court carefully distinguishes the present case from prior decisions in which formulas such as “at least average reputation” were accepted. It notes that in those earlier cases, the adjudicating bodies either expressly assessed the higher degree of reputation, or concluded that even the minimal accepted degree sufficed to demonstrate injury. Neither condition was met in the Puma case. Here, the Board of Appeal stopped at the minimal threshold without showing whether the evidence supported a stronger reputation; moreover, it used that minimal threshold as the basis for dismissing the existence of a link. This methodological shortcut was incompatible with the legal standard imposed by Article 8(5).

4.5. Consequences for the Link and Injury Assessment

Because the flawed assessment of reputation contaminated the Board’s analysis, the Court finds that both the finding of absence of a link and the subsequent reasoning on the absence of injury cannot stand. The entire reasoning chain collapses once the starting point is found to be defective. In particular, the Court notes that, had the Board considered a high or very high degree of reputation, it might have reached a different conclusion regarding the existence of a link. Accordingly, the Court cannot uphold a decision based on an incomplete and methodologically incorrect assessment.

5. Final Decision of the General Court

The General Court annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO in its entirety. It emphasises that its role is confined to reviewing the legality of EUIPO’s decisions and that it cannot itself determine the actual degree of reputation or substitute its own assessment of the link or of the existence of injury. These determinations fall squarely within EUIPO’s mandate, and it is for the Board of Appeal, upon remittal, to conduct a new assessment that explicitly considers the strongest plausible degree of reputation asserted by Puma.

6. Conclusion

The judgment in Puma SE v EUIPO & CMS stands as a doctrinally significant clarification of EUIPO’s procedural obligations in reputation-based opposition proceedings. It affirms that open-ended formulations such as “at least” cannot be used as substitutes for substantive reasoning and that the duty of diligence requires EUIPO to explore explicitly the most favourable scenario for the party whose rights are at stake when assessing the degree of reputation. For proprietors of reputed marks, the judgment provides an important procedural safeguard and ensures that EUIPO’s analyses will henceforth reflect the full evidentiary potential of a reputation claim. For EUIPO, it imposes a heightened standard of analytical clarity and completeness, thereby enhancing the transparency and reliability of opposition decisions within the European trade mark system.

Leave us a message: