EU trade mark disputes: LÀV & LAV - POWERBALL

EU trade mark dispute: LÀV & LAV

On 19 November 2025, the General Court ruled on cases T-563/24 and T-564/24. The dispute concerned the EU figurative marks LÀV (no. 011224821) and LAV (no. 011224771), both of which were registered by the Turkish Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ in March 2013. Both marks were registered for Nice Classes 8, 11, 19, 21, 35, 37 and 39, Furthermore, the LAV mark extended to Classes 41 (education, entertainment, and event organisation) and 43 (catering and temporary accommodation).

In December 2022, the German company Olav GmbH applied for revocation due to non-use of the marks over a period of five consecutive years. The EUIPO Cancellation Division partly upheld the application, revoking protection for most goods and services, except for several goods in Class 21. Based on evidence including invoices, packing lists, customs documents, catalogues and screenshots of the company website, the Division concluded that genuine use had been demonstrated for tableware and glass containers such as glasses, cups, jugs, plates and jars. However, the Fourth Board of Appeal overturned this decision and upheld Olav’s appeal. The Board held that the evidence did not demonstrate the required level of use, criticising the lack of additional explanations and exhaustive cross-references between each invoice line and the catalogue items depicted.

Mr Gürok appealed to the General Court, which annulled the Board of Appeal's two decisions for the same reason. The Board had placed an unreasonable or excessive evidential burden on the proprietor, contrary to Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) of the EUTMR, which require proof of genuine use to avoid revocation, and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which sets out the principle of good administration, including adequate reasoning and proportionality. The Court emphasised that 'use' must be assessed holistically in terms of place, time, nature, and extent. It can be proven through a coherent set of indicators; however, each piece of evidence does not need to prove everything independently.

Furthermore, the Court identified internal inconsistencies in the Board’s decision. On the one hand, the Board accepted that the 902 pages of invoices, delivery notes and other documents (dated in the period 2017–2022) clearly contained product codes and 'LV' references, as well as demonstrating public, outward use and euro-denominated sales to numerous Member States. However, on the other hand, the Board refused to give them sufficient probative 'quality', questioned the catalogues due to a lack of proof of place or precise distribution, and demanded an exhaustive one-to-one cross-check between every invoice line and every catalogue item. Moreover, the Board failed to provide adequate reasoning for deviating from the cross-referencing work carried out by the Cancellation Division.

All in all, the General Court rejected any requirement to prove sales to end consumers, on the basis that external use also covers B2B relations with distributors and professional customers. It also highlighted the importance of matching the product codes on the invoices with those in the 2014 and 2023 catalogues, even though these are within the relevant period, as they corroborate continuity and real exploitation. Lastly, the Court pointed out that requiring a line-by-line analysis of the 2,919 invoiced entries (exceeding EUR 6.485 million in total) would place an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant. Instead, EUIPO should conduct a comprehensive and logical evaluation of the evidence.

EU trade mark dispute: POWERBALL

On 29 October 2025, in case T-375/24, the General Court upheld the invalidation of the EU trade mark POWERBALL (no. 012851556) for services in Classes 35, 41 and most of 42, while maintaining protection for certain scientific services in Class 42.

In May 2014, Tobias Roth registered the word mark 'POWERBALL' with the EUIPO for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42: business analysis and advertising/marketing in Class 35; education and entertainment in Class 41; and design, IT, testing, quality control and science and technology in Class 42. Later, the mark was transferred to Cavour Limited, and then to European Lotto and Betting Ltd. (ELB), which are both within the same Lottoland group. However, in 2021, the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL), which operates the U.S. Powerball lottery, applied for invalidity on the grounds of bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) EUTMR.

It should be noted that Powerball had already been a well-known US lottery operated by the American association since 1992. Meanwhile, Lottoland's business model consisted of allowing consumers in the European Union to bet on the outcomes of third-party lotteries and refer to them by name. Before and shortly after the filing, messages such as 'Play Powerball' and 'America’s No. 1 Lotto now at Lottoland' were displayed on the group’s websites, using 'POWERBALL' to refer to the association’s lottery rather than to indicate the commercial origin of Lottoland’s own services. Moreover, the nominal applicant, Tobias Roth, acted as an intermediary for the group and filed revocation actions against MUSL’s earlier EU marks on the same day.

At first instance and on appeal, the EUIPO upheld the decision to invalidate the trade mark, except for scientific services in Class 42. Although it identified a clear strategy to exploit the POWERBALL reference in areas related to online betting, the strictly scientific services were not connected to this model. Moreover, there was no evidence of use or of a plan to block competitors in R&D, nor that the sign would confer an unfair advantage in that segment.

Lastly, based on an objective and comprehensive assessment of the facts at the time of filing, the General Court concluded that the true intention behind the registration was not to establish a distinctive brand or to fulfil the function of indicating origin, but rather to monopolise the POWERBALL reference in the betting market, thereby either restricting competitors or compelling them to obtain licences. Therefore, the decision to invalidate the trade mark for betting-related services and their commercial or technological exploitation in Classes 35, 41 and 42 was upheld as the sign was not being used as a trade mark (i.e. with the intention of identifying the origin of a product), except for the strictly scientific services in Class 42, where no functional link or specific indications showed the same strategy.