The Trademark MICUIR HANDMADE IN SPAIN at the General Court: Invalidity Due to Descriptive Nature and Key Procedural Issues

The judgment handed down on July 8, 2026, by the General Court in case T-450/25 (MICUIR HANDMADE IN SPAIN) upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had referred the case to the Cancellation Division for further review and also acknowledged the possibility that the trademark “MICUIR HANDMADE IN SPAIN” may be invalid on descriptive grounds.

The General Court agreed with the EUIPO’s conclusion on the merits that the sign “MICUIR HANDMADE IN SPAIN” could be perceived as a descriptive indication of specific characteristics of the goods protected by the trademark, particularly by a not insignificant portion of the French-speaking public of the European Union.

It specifically found that the assessment of the term “MICUIR,” to be understood as a reference to a material that is partially made of leather or semi-leather by this public, was correct given that the French prefix “mi-”, used to express partiality, and the noun “cuir”, which translates to  “leather”, would be recognized as such.

It likewise confirmed that the expression “HANDMADE IN SPAIN,” despite being written in English, could easily be understood by a French-speaking public as an indication of the product’s handcrafted nature, as well as its geographic origin, given that the phrase is commonly used in international trade, particularly in the fashion and leather goods sectors.

The judgment reminds us that an assessment of descriptiveness should always be made from the perspective of the relevant public in each case. In this matter, the Board of Appeal based its entire reasoning from the perspective of the French-speaking public of the European Union. Nonetheless, the appeal primarily focused on explaining how Spanish consumers would understand the term “MICUIR”, an argument that the Court deemed irrelevant precisely because it did not challenge the premises on which the contested decision was based.

Beyond this, the decision also contains interesting procedural clarifications:

First of all, the judgment clarifies a common issue in practice; in a case such as this one, where the Board of Appeal remands the matter to the court of the first instance, the interested party may directly appeal the decision to the General Court, i.e. it would not have to wait for a decision from the court of the first instance after being remanded.

Secondly, the General Court rejected the notion that the trademark owner’s lack of active participation during the administrative proceedings subsequently precluded an appeal to the General Court. In this regard, it indicated that the European Union Trademark Regulation does not impose any obligation to make arguments before the Cancellation Division or the Board of Appeal. As such, this passivity does not constitute acceptance of the other party’s claims, nor does it limit the right to challenge an unfavorable decision.

Link to the Judgment: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/jurisprudence?lang=es&doc-date-start=2026-01-09&sort=DOC_DATE-DESC&doc-date-end=2026-07-14

July 29, 2026