Abstract Does full harmonization of trade mark rights under Directive 2015/2436 preclude Member States from imposing national temporal limitations on enforcement? This article critically examines the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Lunapark (C-452/24), which held that national courts cannot limit trade mark rights beyond what is provided in Articles 18(1) and 9(1)-(2) of Directive 2015/2436. The CJEU’s reasoning protects the registration system’s integrity. However, it inadequately addresses the distinction between substantive limitations and procedural rules. The recent preliminary reference in MPM v ELTON (C-693/25) directly tests these weaknesses. The article explores the unsettled relationship between acquiescence and national limitation periods, and the limited attention given to legitimate expectations where long-standing unregistered use has been tolerated. Consequently, it assesses the practical implications, including whether and when the acquiescence period can be suspended, whether national limitation periods can time-bar damages claims before the 5-year acquiescence period elapses and how prior-use defences should be treated. It concludes with recommendations to clarify the temporal aspects of enforcement of the EU trade marks.
Agnieszka Sztoldman (Tue,) studied this question.