Software and Industrial Property: New Judgement from

the EU Court.

On 1 October, the General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision that declared the European Union trademark “TEAMPLAY” as partially invalid, which is owned by Siemens Healthineers, on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with the Czech national trademark “TEAMPLAY”,  owned by Sunware s.r.o.

The resolution addresses especially relevant questions regarding genuine use and the limitations of subcategories in the field of software.

With regard to genuine use, the Court found that the documentation provided by Sunware – invoices, licence agreements, and commercial offers – demonstrates a real and continuous use of the earlier sign in the Czech Republic, admitting that even though some of the evidence was from outside of the period in question, this type of documentation may be used to contextualize and better assess the extent of use within the relevant period. It was reiterated that a high volume of sales is not necessary: it´s enough that the use is authentic, public, and aimed at maintaining a position in the market.

Another key point in the judgement was the confirmation that “information system software” and information “system software as a service” are autonomous subcategories within the general concepts of “computer software” in class 9 and “software as a service” in class 42, respectively.

This is relevant in that, if a mark has been registered in a sufficiently broad category of goods or services, e.g., software, and several subcategories can be identified within it that are susceptible to independent consideration, proof that the trademark has been put to genuine use in relation to a part of those goods or services affords protection only for the subcategory or subcategories of goods or services to which the mark belongs and in which it has actually been used.

Based on the foregoing, the Court – after confirming that the decisive criterion for determining the existence of a subcategory must focus on the purpose or use of the product or service – found that use of the mark in question was proven, thus confirming the existence of actual use in this specific case, and concluded that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing signs.

Link to the resolution: click here

October 8, 2025