EU trade mark dispute: DEVIN

EU trade mark dispute: DEVIN 

On 29 October 2025, the General Court of the European Union ruled on case T-351/24 concerning the invalidity of the EU word mark DEVIN (no. 009408865). 

In 2011, the Bulgarian company Devin EAD registered the contested mark for goods in Class 32 of the Nice Classification, including non-alcoholic beverages such as water, juices, syrups and sodas, among others. A few years later, the Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (HCCI) filed an invalidity application with the EUIPO, arguing that 'Devin' is the name of a Bulgarian town renowned for its thermal springs and mineral waters. Therefore, it was said to be a geographical term descriptive of the origin of the beverages and thus lacked distinctiveness. The HCCI also claimed that its use could mislead consumers as to the origin of the beverages or infringe public policy. 

Both the EUIPO Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal declared the mark invalid as it was considered descriptive of the term 'Devin' by the Bulgarian public and parts of neighbouring countries. However, Devin EAD appealed to the General Court, which annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal in case T-122/17 of 25 October 2018. The Court held that the EUIPO had not adequately demonstrated that the average consumer in other Member States, such as Greece and Romania, associated the term 'Devin' with the geographical origin of the beverages. As this perception had not been established outside of Bulgaria, the general invalidity of the registration had not been sufficiently justified. 

After the case was referred back, the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO issued a new decision on 28 May 2020. This decision revoked the invalidity with regard to 'mineral water in accordance with the PGI Devin Natural Mineral Water', but upheld it for the rest of the products in class 32. Devin appealed again and, in case T-526/20 of 14 December 2022, the General Court partially annulled the decision. The General Court ruled that the Board of Appeal had failed to assess whether the relevant public associated the term 'Devin' with Class 32 products other than water protected by a geographical indication. 

The Court noted that, if a registered mark contravenes the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(d) of Regulation 207/2009, it can only be maintained for goods for which acquired distinctiveness through use has been proven, as set out in Articles 7(3) and 52(2). Therefore, an analysis had to be conducted for each product, and the EUIPO was required to explicitly assess whether Devin’s evidence demonstrated distinctiveness for other beverages. Failure to do so justified the partial annulment. 

Following the reassignment of the case, the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO issued a new decision on 7 May 2024. This decision confirmed the validity of the “DEVIN” mark for “mineral water” and “seltzer water”, as distinctiveness had been proven through the brand's continuous and recognised use in the Bulgarian market. However, it stated that the mark was invalid for the remaining Class 32 goods due to its descriptive nature with regard to geographical origin, and dismissed the grounds based on public policy or potential deceptiveness. 

Devin EAD appealed once more, but on 29 October 2025, in case T-351/24 the General Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In terms of acquired distinctiveness, the Court emphasised that the burden of proof lies with the trade mark holder. Devin had only demonstrated this for mineral and seltzer waters. References to the mark’s general reputation in the beverage sector were insufficient to extend protection to other goods. Although Devin submitted additional documents to support its claim, such as market reports, surveys, sales data and label samples, these were inadmissible as they should have been presented during the administrative phase, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)'s case law. Under Article 188 of the Rules of Procedure, the scope of the dispute is restricted to the issues defined by the Board of Appeal and cannot be expanded to include new evidence. As these materials formed part of the framework already debated before the EUIPO and did not arise from new facts or ex officio considerations, their admission was rightly refused. 

All in all, this decision brings to an end more than a decade of litigation over the ‘DEVIN’ trade mark. The General Court confirmed that the trade mark could only be maintained for 'mineral water' and 'seltzer water', for which distinctiveness acquired through use had been proven. However, for all other non-alcoholic beverages, such as spring water, table water, flavoured water, juices, nectars, syrups, sodas and non-alcoholic cocktails, the trade mark was considered to be descriptive of geographical origin and is therefore invalid.In terms of costs, Devin EAD shall bear its own costs and those of the HCCI, while the EUIPO shall bear its own costs.