{"id":26918,"date":"2026-11-11T11:31:44","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T09:31:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?post_type=ip-law&p=26918"},"modified":"2026-11-11T11:31:45","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T09:31:45","slug":"when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24","status":"publish","type":"ip-law","link":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/","title":{"rendered":"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The question is clear: Can the proprietor of trade mark rights invoke its ius prohibendi regardless of whether the marks from which those rights arise remain valid?<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The General Court of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) addressed this issue in its judgment of 9 September 2026 in Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24). It unequivocally confirmed that the earlier rights relied on must remain valid not only on the relevant date for determining their priority, but also when EUIPO issues its final decision on the opposition. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

In 2014, the Spanish company Unipreus, S.L. filed an opposition against the application for the figurative European Union trade mark \u201cWALLAPOP\u201d, covering services in Classes 35, 38 and 42, on the basis of three earlier Spanish figurative marks \u201cWALA W\u201d, registered for services in Class 35. The opposition, directed against certain services in Class 35, was based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009, concerning likelihood of confusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Opposition Division partially upheld the opposition. Both parties appealed that decision, and the Fifth Board of Appeal partially upheld Wallapop\u2019s appeal and dismissed Unipreus\u2019s appeal. Unipreus then brought an action before the General Court seeking annulment of the Fifth Board of Appeal\u2019s decision. By judgment of 3 October 2018, Unipreus v EUIPO \u2014 Wallapop (wallapop) (T-186\/17, not published, EU:T:2018:640), the General Court partially annulled that decision, finding that the Board had erred in its assessment by considering the services at issue to be different when they were, at the very least, similar to a low degree. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This brings us to the key point in the dispute. On 5 December 2018, Wallapop appealed that judgment to the Court of Justice. However, on 31 August 2020, it withdrew its appeal after concluding that the registrations of the marks on which the opposition had been based had expired during the proceedings because they had not been renewed. The Court of Justice subsequently closed the case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unipreus attempted to restore its rights in the earlier marks and argued that the expiry of those marks could not prevent the General Court\u2019s judgment of 3 October 2018 from being implemented. Once the expiry of the registrations had been definitively confirmed, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the opposition on the ground that the latter had become devoid of purpose. Unipreus challenged that decision before the General Court, relying principally on two arguments: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • EUIPO had infringed Article 121 of the Rules of Procedure by failing to comply with the binding effect of the judgment of 3 October 2018 and by relying on circumstances arising after that judgment.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • The expiry or lapse of the marks produced effects ex nunc and, because it occurred after the General Court\u2019s annulment judgment of 3 October 2018, could not alter what had been decided in that judgment.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      EUIPO and Wallapop, for their part, argued that the expiry of the marks on which the opposition had been based constituted a new fact that had to be taken into account because it directly affected the opposing party\u2019s ius prohibendi. The rights existed when the opposition was filed, but were no longer valid when the Board of Appeal was required to rule again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      On 9 September 2026, the General Court of the European Union ruled in favour of EUIPO and Wallapop, dismissing Unipreus\u2019s action in its entirety, principally on the following grounds: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      First, the Court recalled that similarity between the services does not in itself establish a likelihood of confusion, since similarity or identity between the signs and similarity or identity between the goods or services are cumulative requirements. In its 2018 judgment, the General Court had confined itself to correcting the assessment relating to the services, without ruling on whether there was a likelihood of confusion, a question that EUIPO was required to examine in the first instance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Against that background, the General Court held that the Board of Appeal was required to take the expiry of the registrations into account as a new fact, even though it had occurred after the annulment judgment of 3 October 2018. Since the Board was required to adopt a new decision, it had to assess the circumstances existing at that time, without thereby infringing either the principle of res judicata or the principle of legal certainty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      The most significant aspect of the case is precisely the requirement that the earlier right relied on must remain valid until EUIPO issues its final decision on the opposition. The existence of the relative ground for refusal must be assessed not only by reference to the situation existing on the initial relevant date, but also by reference to the situation existing when the final decision is adopted. The General Court thus extended by analogy to Article 8(1)(b) the case-law established by the Court of Justice in EUIPO v Nowhere in relation to Article 8(4). <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      Lastly, the Court held that the reason for the loss of the earlier right was irrelevant: what mattered was that the right was no longer valid when EUIPO ruled. It also rejected the application of Article 55 of Regulation No 207\/2009, since that provision concerns European Union trade marks rather than the Spanish national marks on which Unipreus had based its opposition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      A judgment that establishes criteria and defines the nature of opposition proceedings<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This judgment of the General Court sets out a very clear rule: EUIPO may take into account changes in circumstances arising after an opposition has been filed, and the loss of validity of the earlier right during the proceedings may render the opposition devoid of purpose. This means that obtaining a favourable ruling at one stage of the proceedings does not, in itself, guarantee the final outcome: the rights on which the opposition is based must be kept in force. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The judgment also draws a distinction between priority and validity. Priority determines which right is earlier, but that earlier status is not sufficient in itself: the right must continue to exist and produce legal effects when EUIPO issues its final decision on the opposition. The Court also makes clear that the reason for the loss of the right is secondary. What matters is that, at the time of the decision, the earlier mark is no longer capable of conferring an ius prohibendi. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n

      From a practical perspective, the case highlights the importance of proper portfolio management throughout the proceedings. Renewing and maintaining registrations may be just as decisive as the litigation strategy itself. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      Lastly, the judgment is particularly noteworthy from a purposive perspective, as it confirms that opposition proceedings perform a fundamentally preventive rather than punitive function. If the earlier right ceases to be protected before the opposition is finally decided, its essential function can no longer be jeopardised by registration of the later mark. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This interpretation prevents continued barriers to registration based on rights that no longer exist and helps avoid prolonging proceedings that have lost their legal basis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      References:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      General Court of the European Union, Judgment of 9 September 2026, Unipreus, S.L. v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop, S.L., Case T-551\/24.<\/em> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":26915,"template":"","categorias-ip-litigations":[116],"class_list":["post-26918","ip-law","type-ip-law","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","categorias-ip-litigations-trademarks"],"yoast_head":"\nWhen priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0 - PONS IP<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0 - PONS IP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The question is clear: Can the proprietor of trade mark rights invoke its ius prohibendi regardless of whether the marks from which those rights arise remain valid?  The General Court of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) addressed this issue in its judgment of 9 September 2026 in Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24). It unequivocally ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"PONS IP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-11-11T09:31:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/\",\"name\":\"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0 - PONS IP\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-11-11T09:31:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-11-11T09:31:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png\",\"width\":960,\"height\":480},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Portada\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IP Law\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-litigations\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\",\"name\":\"PONS IP\",\"description\":\"Consultora Global especializada en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"PONS IP\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg\",\"width\":166,\"height\":26,\"caption\":\"PONS IP\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0 - PONS IP","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0 - PONS IP","og_description":"The question is clear: Can the proprietor of trade mark rights invoke its ius prohibendi regardless of whether the marks from which those rights arise remain valid?  The General Court of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) addressed this issue in its judgment of 9 September 2026 in Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24). It unequivocally ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/","og_site_name":"PONS IP","article_modified_time":"2026-11-11T09:31:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":960,"height":480,"url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/","name":"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0 - PONS IP","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png","datePublished":"2026-11-11T09:31:44+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-11T09:31:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Imagen1-e1794389468243.png","width":960,"height":480},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/when-priority-is-no-longer-enough-the-general-court-establishes-an-essential-requirement-in-opposition-proceedings-unipreus-v-euipo-wallapop-t-551-24\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Portada","item":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IP Law","item":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-litigations\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"When priority is no longer enough: The General Court establishes an essential requirement in opposition proceedings. Unipreus v EUIPO \u2013 Wallapop (T-551\/24).\u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/","name":"PONS IP","description":"Consultora Global especializada en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization","name":"PONS IP","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg","width":166,"height":26,"caption":"PONS IP"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip-law\/26918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip-law"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/ip-law"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"categorias-ip-litigations","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categorias-ip-litigations?post=26918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}