Abstract In 2025, a total of 171 984 trade marks were registered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Only 665 of these were ‘non-traditional trade marks’, by this inter alia meaning sounds, colours, patterns, shapes and holograms. More than 80 per cent of these non-traditional registrations consisted of shape (3D) marks, while sound, colour and pattern marks together accounted for a negligible fraction of overall registrations, and no hologram marks were registered at all. This concentration indicates that, in practice, the concept of non-traditional trade marks at EU level remains largely confined to product shapes rather than sensory or abstract signs. Data suggest that the present trend towards obtaining EU trade mark (EUTM) registration for non-traditional trade marks still remains low, with merely 0.38 per cent of all applications received by the EUIPO in 2025 concerning such signs. This is despite the removal of the graphical representation requirement in 2017, which was intended to facilitate the registration of non-traditional marks. The limited number of cases decided during this period continues to centre primarily on the assessment of inherent distinctiveness and the high evidentiary threshold for acquired distinctiveness across the European Union, rather than on issues of representation or technical admissibility. This article provides an analysis of seven judgments of the General Court (GC), within the field of non-traditional EUTMs issued in the course of 2025.
Malovic et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: