{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-29","fingerprint":"ewai:se:b130c8","proof":"sha256:70acd5509898b950548ad59d3d3aad5a786de989829509339ba431a16eee4220","jurisdiction":"se","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","object_type":"edge","object_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p","schema_version":"1","schema":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/schemas/edge","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p","judgment":{"id":"eu:c-753-25-p","text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-753-25-p"},"siblings":{"risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/risk/eu:c-753-25-p","relation":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/relation/eu:c-753-25-p","change":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/change/eu:c-753-25-p","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/agent/eu:c-753-25-p","provenance":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/provenance/eu:c-753-25-p","status":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/status/eu:c-753-25-p","precedent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-753-25-p","element":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/element/eu:c-753-25-p","decision":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/decision/eu:c-753-25-p","weight":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/weight/eu:c-753-25-p","conflict":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/conflict/eu:c-753-25-p","citation_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/citation_graph/eu:c-753-25-p"},"source":"NovaCopilot","precedent_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/precedent-graph/eu:c-753-25-p","item":{"judgment":"eu:c-753-25-p","outgoing":[{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~follows~c-46-25","type":"follows","label_sv":"följer","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-46/25","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_47"],"excerpt":"26 As regards the line of argument alleging inconsistency in the approaches of the General Court and EUIPO, set out in paragraph 10 of the present order, it must be borne in mind that the legality of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO must be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 40/94,","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"be8fb4090c1e205c5694dced76b1358233b49f414150d8c37dc69d5070d2c0e8"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-120-04","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-120/04","id":"eu:c-120-04","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-120-04"},"paragraph_ids":["para_28","para_30","para_31"],"excerpt":"However, the General Court failed to examine whether the earlier mark retained an independent distinctive role, contrary to what is required by the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 October 2005, Medion (C-120/04, EU:C:2005:594), and of 8 May 2014, Bimbo v OHIM (C-591/12 P, EU:C:2014:305).","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"eff6e2557513367ae0e20f3f2ca45025a7e873b825752e4fb2f5945d4fcbe55f"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-252-07","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-252/07","id":"eu:c-252-07","url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-252-07"},"paragraph_ids":["para_32","para_34"],"excerpt":"12 By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, by treating the degree of closeness or dissimilarity between the goods and services at issue as decisive for the purpose of assessing whether there existed a link in the mind of the public between the earlier mark and the mark applied fo","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"c33d0a78ea4e3808bc945b5eeefe92f6a4d170a645cd8563c774a6e97c113e98"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-382-21","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-382/21","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_40","para_41","para_42","para_44"],"excerpt":"19 As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that the issues raised by its appeal are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C-382/21 P, EU:C:2","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"0895e5397f043cb734e00ca568d997d2c6b8d57c7d41842d954266cc798f1aa0"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-591-12","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-591/12","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_28","para_31"],"excerpt":"However, the General Court failed to examine whether the earlier mark retained an independent distinctive role, contrary to what is required by the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 October 2005, Medion (C-120/04, EU:C:2005:594), and of 8 May 2014, Bimbo v OHIM (C-591/12 P, EU:C:2014:305).","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"2449101cd18c22591f1fd8b21d89a216d25bce3b3d11a2e0f48ca9a8ab9d77cf"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-598-25","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-598/25","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_48"],"excerpt":"19 As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that the issues raised by its appeal are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C-382/21 P, EU:C:2","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"9b8d155d31c0601ab572f69e72598ae1bab8b7eb9a9a624d1343bc1c6edb8dfd"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-610-25","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-610/25","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_44","para_45"],"excerpt":"In order to demonstrate that that is the case, it is necessary to establish both the existence and significance of such issues by means of concrete evidence specific to the particular case, and not simply arguments of a general nature (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wi","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"383d8256b19ab54de40938ed6a090990f291788002ceb06ec02c63634ad22a17"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-613-19","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-613/19","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_43"],"excerpt":"22 A request that an appeal be allowed to proceed which does not contain the information mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the present order cannot be capable of demonstrating that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law th","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"3bf6c9cac668e2d61edac32c676e1c1515f2974cf9ddc130054024b3e653a1b5"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-65-12","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-65/12","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_37"],"excerpt":"17 The appellant claims that, in so doing, the General Court infringed the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries (C-65/12, EU:C:2014:49); of 16 April 2008, Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM - Citi (CITI) (T-181/05, EU:T:2008:112); of 5 July 2016, Future ","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"446f16175d8aa612f25608ab7d6d2466ff53cc9b58055b7aa6e6756c7abaf4ec"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~c-753-25","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"C-753/25","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_4"],"excerpt":"In Case C-753/25 P,","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"46c3744eedd8130c2c2f44205281323734b258c1356261ae378e193b759015ac"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~t-181-05","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"T-181/05","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_37"],"excerpt":"17 The appellant claims that, in so doing, the General Court infringed the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries (C-65/12, EU:C:2014:49); of 16 April 2008, Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM - Citi (CITI) (T-181/05, EU:T:2008:112); of 5 July 2016, Future ","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"9c8037af309caa2db464e2e0fe26028d297421a0c56a60c4b5ad1dd5060e27f7"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~t-425-24","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"T-425/24","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_19"],"excerpt":"1 By its appeal, Industria de Diseño Textil, SA, asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 September 2025, Ffauf Italia v EUIPO - Industria de Diseño Textil (pastaZARA Sublime) (T-425/24, ‘the contested judgment’, EU:T:2025:849), by which th","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"572e56cbf62d91636eaf4c4832c8a2c617e0cea8be257000ab14c7cbdb12829d"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~t-518-13","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"T-518/13","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_37"],"excerpt":"17 The appellant claims that, in so doing, the General Court infringed the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries (C-65/12, EU:C:2014:49); of 16 April 2008, Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM - Citi (CITI) (T-181/05, EU:T:2008:112); of 5 July 2016, Future ","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"3e16ff13bc798e8144441d4bb0570944bf905db9b482fd9b6705e92f3aaf4d45"},{"edge_id":"edge:eu:c-753-25-p~cites~t-629-16","type":"cites","label_sv":"hänvisar till","from":"eu:c-753-25-p","to":{"ref":"T-629/16","id":null,"url":null},"paragraph_ids":["para_37"],"excerpt":"17 The appellant claims that, in so doing, the General Court infringed the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries (C-65/12, EU:C:2014:49); of 16 April 2008, Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM - Citi (CITI) (T-181/05, EU:T:2008:112); of 5 July 2016, Future ","decided":"2026-04-14","hash":"770a620d97480d7200cfb19d766f58978a2196cb169138d9c1e34804389c6952"}],"incoming":[],"acts":[],"counts":{"outgoing":14,"incoming":0,"acts":0},"follow":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p?follow=5","hash":"b361a0b52ab14652999b2c4ad2cabf911a951212db5efd8c5814f8a5cb374483"},"links":{"provisions":null,"case_law":{"precedent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/precedent/eu:c-753-25-p","conflict":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/conflict/eu:c-753-25-p","citation_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/citation_graph/eu:c-753-25-p","weight":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/weight/eu:c-753-25-p"},"compact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p?view=compact","representations":{"sv":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-753-25-p","en":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/en/eu/praxis/c-753-25-p"},"machine_languages":["en","sv"],"ref":"eu:c-753-25-p"},"watch":{"risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu%3Ac-753-25-p","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu%3Ac-753-25-p","risk_changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk-changes","node_state":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-state?id=eu%3Ac-753-25-p","provenance":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/provenance/eu:c-753-25-p"},"metadata":{"schema":"novacopilot_object_metadata/1","canonical_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","official_source":null,"short_answer":null,"short_answer_status":"not_in_register","hash":"b361a0b52ab14652999b2c4ad2cabf911a951212db5efd8c5814f8a5cb374483","schema_version":"1","last_verified_at":null,"verification_status":"not_verified_yet","integrity_check_scope":"stored_content_only"},"hash":"sha256:70acd5509898b950548ad59d3d3aad5a786de989829509339ba431a16eee4220","version":"legal-2026-10-29","expires":"2026-10-30T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-29+legal-2026-10-29+2026-10-29T20:33:22","content_hash":"sha256:70acd5509898b950548ad59d3d3aad5a786de989829509339ba431a16eee4220","revalidate_after":"2026-10-29T23:01:28.465Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu:c-753-25-p","disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","withheld":{"links.evidence":3},"access":{"status":"partner_key_required","header":"x-partner-key","contact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/kontakt","note":"Facts and counts are public. Relationships and decision paths stay inside NovaCopilot."},"access_class":"relationship","access_view":"public","freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-10-29T22:01:28.974Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obj/edge/eu%3Ac-753-25-p","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":4342}}