The EU General Court has clarified that the acquired distinctiveness of an established brand cannot automatically establish the inherent distinctiveness of a new trade mark incorporating that brand.

A well-established brand may enjoy considerable recognition among consumers, but does this automatically mean that a new trade mark incorporating that brand is eligible for registration?

In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2026, the General Court of the European Union addressed this question in Veikkaus Oy v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Case T-615/25), concerning an application to register the sign “FOR BETTER GAMING – VEIKKAUS” as an EU trade mark (“EUTM”).

The decision provides important clarification on the distinction between inherent distinctiveness and distinctiveness acquired through use. It also serves as a reminder to businesses that an established brand's reputation does not necessarily guarantee the registrability of new slogans, composite marks or other commercial identifiers.

Background to the Dispute

In 2024, Finnish gaming company Veikkaus Oy applied to register the word mark “FOR BETTER GAMING – VEIKKAUS” with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”).

The application covered various gaming and gambling-related services, together with associated services, falling within Classes 35, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification.

The EUIPO initially refused registration on the basis that the sign lacked distinctive character. This decision was subsequently upheld, in substantial part, by the EUIPO's Board of Appeal.

Veikkaus challenged the decision before the General Court, arguing that the sign possessed inherent distinctiveness, particularly because the element “VEIKKAUS” had already acquired distinctiveness through extensive use in Finland.

The company maintained that the recognition enjoyed by the “VEIKKAUS” brand should be taken into account when determining whether the proposed composite mark could function as an indication of commercial origin.

The General Court ultimately dismissed the action, confirming that the acquired distinctiveness of an individual component does not, in itself, establish the inherent distinctiveness of a composite trade mark.

Understanding Distinctiveness Under EU Trade Mark Law

Under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (“EUTMR”), a sign must possess distinctive character to qualify for registration as an EU trade mark.

Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement of trade mark protection. It ensures that a registered sign enables consumers to identify the commercial origin of particular goods or services and distinguish them from those offered by competing businesses.

EU trade mark law recognises two important concepts in this respect: 

• Inherent distinctiveness refers to a sign's ability to identify commercial origin by virtue of its intrinsic characteristics, independently of any reputation or recognition developed through commercial use.

• Acquired distinctiveness, on the other hand, arises where a sign that would ordinarily lack distinctive character has become recognisable to the relevant public as an indication of commercial origin through its use in the marketplace.

Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR provides that trade marks which are devoid of distinctive character must be refused registration.

However, Article 7(3) EUTMR establishes an exception where the applicant can demonstrate that the sign has acquired distinctive character through use in relation to the goods or services concerned.

The distinction between these two provisions was central to the dispute in Veikkaus.

The General Court's Findings

In assessing the application, the General Court considered how the relevant Finnish-speaking public would perceive the expression “FOR BETTER GAMING – VEIKKAUS”.

The Court agreed with the EUIPO's assessment that the expression would be understood as a promotional message referring to better gambling or betting services.

In particular, the Finnish word “VEIKKAUS” means betting or prediction betting. When combined with the English phrase “FOR BETTER GAMING”, the resulting expression was considered to convey an ordinary promotional message rather than an indication of the commercial origin of the services concerned.

The Court acknowledged that advertising slogans are not automatically excluded from trade mark protection. Indeed, a slogan may possess distinctive character where it displays sufficient originality, conveys multiple meanings or requires some interpretation by consumers.

However, the expression at issue did not satisfy these considerations. Neither the combination of English and Finnish words nor the inclusion of a hyphen was sufficient to alter the overall promotional meaning of the sign.

More importantly, the Court rejected Veikkaus' argument that the previously acquired distinctiveness of the word “VEIKKAUS” should establish the inherent distinctiveness of the composite mark.

The General Court emphasised that the assessment of inherent distinctiveness must be based on the intrinsic characteristics of the sign as applied for.

Consequently, evidence of prior commercial use, consumer recognition or the reputation of an individual component cannot be relied upon to establish inherent distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR.

Such evidence is relevant instead to an assessment of acquired distinctiveness under Article 7(3) EUTMR.

The Court also rejected the argument that an established family of trade marks or existing national registrations could determine the inherent distinctiveness of the proposed sign.

Accordingly, the General Court upheld the EUIPO's assessment and dismissed the action.

Why the Decision Matters for Established Brands

The judgment is particularly relevant to businesses that have developed considerable brand recognition and subsequently seek to expand their trade mark portfolios.

Companies frequently incorporate established brand names into new advertising slogans, product names, marketing campaigns and other commercial identifiers.

However, as demonstrated by the Veikkaus judgment, the fact that consumers recognise an existing brand does not automatically mean that every new expression incorporating that brand will satisfy the requirements for EUTM registration.

For example, a business may enjoy extensive recognition under a particular brand name but nevertheless encounter difficulties registering a new slogan that combines that name with descriptive or promotional language.

The EUIPO will assess the proposed sign as a whole and determine whether it possesses the necessary distinctive character independently of the reputation acquired by its individual components.

Where the sign lacks inherent distinctiveness, the applicant may need to rely on Article 7(3) EUTMR and demonstrate that the sign applied for has itself acquired distinctiveness through use.

This distinction can have significant practical consequences.

Establishing acquired distinctiveness ordinarily requires evidence demonstrating that the relevant public identifies the sign as indicating the commercial origin of the goods or services concerned.

Depending on the circumstances, such evidence may include market research, consumer surveys, advertising expenditure, sales figures and material demonstrating the extent and duration of the sign's commercial use.

Importantly, evidence relating solely to the recognition of an existing brand may not be sufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness of a newly introduced composite mark.

Practical Considerations for Businesses

The decision highlights the importance of incorporating trade mark considerations into brand development and marketing strategies from an early stage.

Businesses seeking protection for slogans or composite marks should not assume that an established commercial reputation will necessarily overcome objections relating to distinctiveness.

In particular, businesses should carefully consider whether a proposed mark, taken as a whole, is capable of distinguishing their goods or services from those of competitors, rather than merely communicating a promotional or descriptive message.

Where a proposed mark contains descriptive elements, appropriate consideration should also be given to the evidence that may be required to establish acquired distinctiveness.

For businesses operating across several European markets, this assessment becomes particularly important. Under Article 7(2) EUTMR, an absolute ground for refusal may prevent registration even where it exists in only part of the European Union.

As a result, a sign that is considered distinctive in one market may encounter difficulties in another, particularly where language differences affect how consumers perceive its meaning.

A carefully developed trade mark strategy can therefore help businesses identify potential registration obstacles, evaluate alternative forms of brand protection and avoid unnecessary costs associated with applications that may ultimately be refused.

Looking Ahead

The General Court's judgment in Veikkaus reinforces a fundamental distinction under EU trade mark law: the commercial recognition of a brand and the inherent registrability of a trade mark are separate legal considerations.

While acquired distinctiveness can provide a route to registration for signs that would otherwise be refused protection, it cannot automatically transform a descriptive or promotional expression into an inherently distinctive mark.

The decision also underlines the importance of assessing composite marks in their entirety, rather than relying exclusively on the reputation or recognition of individual elements.

For businesses investing in brand development, the judgment serves as a timely reminder that effective trade mark protection requires more than commercial recognition. It also requires careful consideration of the legal requirements governing registration and the evidence necessary to support an application.

How CSB Group can assist

At CSB Group, our Legal and Regulatory team assists businesses with EU and national trade mark registrations, intellectual property protection and the development of effective brand protection strategies. Our team provides guidance throughout the trade mark registration process, including preliminary assessments, responses to objections and advice on protecting intellectual property rights across multiple jurisdictions.

About the Author

This article has been authored by Senior Advisor - Legal, Dr Simon Mangion.