In case no. T-494/24, the General Court addressed an unusual but practically important dispute concerning the extent to which co-ownership of an EU Trade Mark may be inferred from the parties’ conduct and commercial relationship.
The applicant had used the sign “CRETE HOMES” for many years and was also the owner of an earlier Greek Trade Mark registered in his sole name. The contested EU Trade Mark was later filed jointly by the applicant and his long-standing business associate, whose role had evolved from employee to representative and ultimately to business partner.
Following the breakdown of the business relationship, the applicant sought invalidity of the jointly owned EU Trade Mark under Article 52(1)(b) and Article 8(3) of the then applicable Regulation No 40/94, arguing that the registration in favour of the intervener had occurred without his valid consent.
Against that factual background, the dispute ultimately turned on the legal standard for establishing valid consent under Article 8(3) EUTMR.
Article 8(3) EUTMR aims to prevent the unauthorised registration of a Trade Mark by an agent or representative acting without the proprietor’s consent.
The central issue was whether conduct and surrounding documentation could satisfy the high threshold of ‘clear, specific and unconditional’ consent required under Article 8(3) EUTMR.
A central element of the Court’s reasoning was a general power of attorney signed by both parties and filed shortly after the EU Trade Mark application. The document authorised a joint representative to act before the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)on behalf of both parties in Trade Mark matters.
The applicant argued that the power of attorney did not constitute unequivocal consent to co-ownership, since it referred broadly to “all procedures” and did not expressly state that the intervener would become co-owner of the EU Trade Mark.
The Court, nevertheless, treated the power of attorney as sufficiently probative, emphasizing that it had been signed by both parties and filed during the registration process shortly after the application of the Trade Mark in question.
That evidentiary assessment, however, did not rest on the power of attorney alone, but was reinforced by the wider commercial context in which the Trade Mark application had been filed.
The Court also considered the broader history of the relationship between the parties, including its gradual evolution from employment to representation and, ultimately, to a business partnership.
Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no convincing evidence that the intervener had concealed the joint registration. In particular, the applicant failed to explain how he could have remained unaware that the contested EU Trade Mark had been registered jointly in the names of both parties.
The applicant’s reliance on earlier Trade Marks and domain names registered solely in his own name was likewise insufficient to undermine the existence of consent. The Court considered the joint registration consistent with the gradual development of the parties’ commercial relationship.
The judgment is significant because it reveals a possible gap between the strict language of Article 8(3) EUTMR and the Court’s more flexible evidentiary approach in practice.
Although the Court formally reiterated that consent under Article 8(3) EUTMR must be ‘clear, specific and unconditional’, its reasoning suggests that, in practice, this demanding standard may be satisfied through a broader contextual assessment rather than through explicit documentation alone.
From a critical perspective, however, the decision raises the question whether a standard described as ‘clear, specific and unconditional’ loses some of its limiting force if courts are prepared to infer consent from a broader commercial narrative.
The decision therefore reflects a practical approach to disputes arising out of evolving business relationships, where ownership expectations may not always be documented with precision from the outset.
From a practical perspective, case no. T-494/24 highlights the risks associated with informal intellectual property arrangements in closely connected commercial relationships.
Businesses often develop organically over time. Employees may become representatives; representatives may become partners, and signs initially associated with one individual may gradually become integrated into a broader commercial structure. As long as the business relationship remains stable, ambiguities concerning ownership may remain largely invisible.
Once the relationship deteriorates, however, courts may be required to reconstruct the parties’ intentions retrospectively from powers of attorney, business arrangements and long-term patterns of conduct.
For practitioners, the judgment underscores that unclear ownership arrangements may later be reconstructed by reference to conduct and commercial context in ways that one party did not anticipate; explicit allocation of Trade Mark ownership at an early stage is therefore essential.
Versão em Português — Art. 8.º(3) RMUE: consentimento e cotitularidade (T-494/24)
