General Court: EUIPO did not infringe principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

In Olimp Laboratories sp z oo v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Case T-511/22), the General Court has examined whether parties can rely on earlier decisions of the EUIPO to determine the outcome of an opposition case on the premise that the EUIPO is subject to the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.


Olimp Laboratories, a Polish entity, is the proprietor of the earlier EU and national figurative marks (claimed as a ‘family’ of marks) depicted below:

In 2020 Olimp opposed an EUTM application by German national Sonja Schmitzer for the following mark:

Both marks overlapped in Classes 5 and 35, among others. The opposition was rejected by the EUIPO and the Board of Appeal subsequently dismissed the appeal by the Polish company, citing no likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

Appeal to the General Court

This decision was further appealed to the General Court, with Olimp seeking an annulment of the Board of Appeal’s decision and a re-hearing by the EUIPO, and asking for the adverse decision of the EUIPO to be overturned. The EUIPO and Schmitzer both sought to dismiss the action.

In its arguments, Olimp pleaded infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.


Article 8(1)(b) 

Olimp’s complaints were as follows:

  1. lack of distinctive character of the word element ‘hpu and you’;
  2. an incorrect comparison of the signs at issue and infringement of the ‘principle of trademarks similarity assessment’; and
  3. failure to take into consideration its family of trademarks.

The court rejected as unfounded the contention that the word element ‘hpu and you’ lacked distinctive character, stating that the overall impression of the mark gave rise to the perception that the word element in this instance had to be considered as the distinctive element due to its positioning and readability.

For the second complaint, relying on the above reasoning, the court pointed out that the word element clearly distinguished the marks from each other. In addition, even though the signs at issue all contained a combination of three hexagons, those combinations differed in their orientation, position and colour. As such, the court rejected this complaint.

In relation to the ‘family of marks’ (likelihood of association) argument, the court held that this could be invoked only if two conditions are cumulatively satisfied:

  1. The owner of a series of registrations must furnish proof of use of all (or at least a substantial number of) the marks belonging to the series; and
  2. The later mark must not only be similar to the series of marks, but must also display characteristics capable of associating it with the series.

In this case, as Olimp had failed to provide evidence in which the common element to its registrations was the specific combination of three hexagons, and also did not provide sufficient evidence of proof of use, the court upheld the Board of Appeal’s assessment that this was not a family of marks.

Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty

Olimp claimed that the EUIPO had infringed the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty by failing to refuse registration of the mark when it could claim rights relating to very similar earlier marks. It went on to argue that, in 10 earlier decisions of the EUIPO, registration was refused in respect of later figurative marks on the ground that those marks were regarded as visually similar. For this reason, Olimp believed that it had a legitimate expectation that its own opposition should succeed on the basis of these earlier decisions.

The court disagreed, pointing out that the decisions concerning the registration of a sign as an EUTM which the Boards of Appeal are led to take under Regulation 2017/1001 are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion. Accordingly, the legality of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation as interpreted by the EU judicature, and not on the basis of a previous decision-making practice. The court concluded that the EUIPO’s earlier decisions cannot give rise to legitimate expectations.

In addition, the court held that, while the EUIPO is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of EU law and although, in the light of the principles of equal treatment and of sound administration, the EUIPO must take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not, those principles must be applied with respect for the principle of legality. In the present case, the applicant could not reasonably rely on earlier decisions of the EUIPO in part because it had failed to explain the relevance of these decisions in relation to the case at hand.

For the reasons set out above, the court dismissed the appeal.


This decision, while giving some clarity on the extent that the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty can be relied upon by EUTM owners, will not be very welcome to IP practitioners and trademark owners alike, as it continues to highlight the weaknesses of the legal and regulatory regime - particularly when it comes to the IP rights of business owners. Commerce places a high value on certainty, which the current system does not appear to be able to satisfactorily address.

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in November 2023. For further information, please go to


Privacy Settings

Privacy Settings
Saves the current privacy settings.
Retention period: This cookie will remain for 30 days.
Saves the current PHP session.
Retention period: This cookie will only remain for the current browser session.
Performance and Analytics Cookies
These technologies allow us to analyze website usage in order to measure and improve performance.
Google Analytics
This is a web analytics service. It allows the user to measure advertising ROI, track flash, video and social networking sites and applications.
Provider: Google Ireland Limited - Google Building Gordon House, 4 Barrow St, Dublin, D04 E5W5, Ireland
Technical name: _ga,_gat_gtag_UA_120928533_6,_gid
Show more details

Data Purposes

This list represents the purposes of the data collection and processing.
- Marketing
- Analytics

Technologies Used

- Cookies
- Pixel

Data Collected

This list represents all (personal) data that is collected by or through the use of this service.

- App updates
- Click path
- Date and time of visit
- Device information
- Downloads
- Flash version
- Location information
- IP address
- JavaScript support
- Pages visited
- Purchase activity
- Referrer URL
- Usage data
- Widget interactions
- Browser information

Legal Basis

In the following the required legal basis for the processing of data is listed.

- Art. 6 para. 1 s. 1 lit. a GDPR

Location of Processing

- European Union

Retention Period

The retention period is the time span the collected data is saved for the processing purposes. The data needs to be deleted as soon as it is no longer needed for the stated processing purposes.
The Retention Period depends on the type of the saved data. Each client can choose how long Google Analytics retains data before automatically deleting it.
Data Recipients

- Google Ireland Limited, Alphabet Inc., Google LLC

Data Protection Officer of Processing Company

Below you can find the email address of the data protection officer of the processing company.

Transfer to Third Countries

This service may forward the collected data to a different country. Please note that this service might transfer the data outside of the EU/EEA and to a country without the required data protection standards. If the data is transferred to the US, there is a risk that your data can be processed by US authorities, for control and surveillance measures, possibly without legal remedies. Below you can find a list of countries to which the data is being transferred. This can be for different reasons like storing or processing.

United States of America,Singapore,Chile,Taiwan

Click here to read the privacy policy of the data processor

Click here to opt out from this processor across all domains

Click here to read the cookie policy of the data processor

Storage Information

Below you can see the longest potential duration for storage on a device, as set when using the cookie method of storage and if there are any other methods used.

- Maximum age of cookie storage: 2 years

  Accept all
Please upgrade your browser. This website is not compatible with Internet Explorer.