TRADEMARK | The EU Court of Justice on preclusion due to acquiescence

On 1 August 2025, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) issued its judgment in case C-452/24 (Lunapark Scandinavia Oy Ltd v hardeco Finland Oy) in response to a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Finland concerning the interpretation of Articles 9, 10 and 18 of Directive (EU) No. 2015/2436 of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (the Directive). The case involved Lunapark Scandinavia Oy, owner of the trademark “DRACULA” and Hardeco Finland Oy, which continued to use that sign after acquiring a business that had used it, while Lunapark had been inactive for years. In this context, the CJEU ruled that Article 10 of the Directive must be interpreted in precluding the introduction by Member States of additional causes of loss or limitation of rights beyond those expressly set out in the same Directive. In essence, the CJEU clarified that the EU provisions on acquiescence under Article 9 of the Directive are exhaustive, meaning that national laws cannot invoke general principles such as good faith or legitimate expectations to restrict the exercise of exclusive rights where the conditions of the Directive are not met. Therefore, mere tolerance on the part of the trademark owner cannot deprive it of enforcement rights unless the specific requirements under EU legislation (such as the time limit of 5 years and the lack of bad faith) have been fulfilled.

Newsletter n. 111 – October 2025