EU General Court Confirms Invalidity of KnitPro’s Chevron Mark for Lack of Distinctive Character

In its recent judgment of 21 May 2025 in case T-133/24 (KnitPro International v EUIPO and 135 Kirkstall, Inc.), the General Court of the European Union concludes a long-running legal dispute spanning more than a decade over the registrability as an EU trade mark of a geometric pattern composed of chevrons and parallel lines, applied to knitting needles and crochet hooks.

Background of the dispute

The mark in question – a black-and-white figurative sign consisting of repeated chevron shapes between parallel lines – was filed on 15 February 2010 by M/S. Indeutsch International (later succeeded by KnitPro International). It was registered on 10 August 2010 for “knitting needles” and “crochet hooks” in Class 26.

On 9 January 2013, Crafts Americana Group (now 135 Kirkstall, Inc.) sought to invalidate the trade mark under Articles 7(1)(a) and (b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR), arguing a lack of distinctive character. The EUIPO Cancellation Division initially rejected the request, but the EUIPO Board of Appeal later annulled the mark in 2015. That decision was overturned by the General Court in case T-20/16 for incorrectly basing its assessment on how the mark was used in practice –particularly in colour– instead of examining the mark as registered. A second Board decision in 2019 again found the mark invalid under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR but failed to address Article 7(1)(a) EUTMR, leading to another annulment by the General Court in case T-124/20.

On 15 December 2023, the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal reissued its decision, rejecting the claim based on Article 7(1)(a) EUTMR but reaffirming the mark’s lack of distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR, and referred the case to the EUIPO Cancellation Division to consider acquired distinctiveness under Article 7(3) EUTMR.

KnitPro appealed this decision exclusively on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR.

General Court’s judgment

In its judgment of 21 May 2025, the General Court of the EU dismissed all KnitPro’s arguments and upheld the Grand Board’s reasoning.

The likely types of use of the mark are relevant factors in the examination of its distinctive character (1)

The General Court first rejected KnitPro’s argument that the Grand Board repeated the same error as in 2017 by assessing the mark based on how it appeared on actual goods rather than as registered. The General Court held that the distinctive character of a sign must be examined by taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, including all the likely types of use of the mark applied for, namely those which are significant in the practice of the economic sector in question. The General Court affirmed that the Grand Board appropriately limited its analysis to the black-and-white graphic representation of the mark as filed. The Grand Board also correctly considered that the goods in question were long and thin, commonly fabricated from various materials, and that the mark was intended to be applied to the goods themselves, their packaging, and promotional materials.

Marks that are indissociable from the appearance of the goods concerned (2)

According to established case law, where a sign is indistinguishable from the appearance of the product or a part of the product, it has to depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector in order to fulfil its essential function of indicating origin. The General Court confirms that this case-law applies, in addition to three-dimensional marks, also to figurative marks consisting of a two-dimensional representation of the product designated.

According to the General Court, where the relevant public will be confronted with the mark at issue affixed to the surface of the goods in question, that public will be able to perceive the mark as being indissociable from the appearance of a part of the shape of those goods. Additionally, the Grand Board had rightly determined that knitting needles and crochet hooks are generally made from varied materials and do not follow a uniform design, and that the pattern in question – especially when applied to wooden goods – resembled a typical wood grain rather than indicating origin. Consequently, the General Court concluded that the mark did not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector and was therefore devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR.

Decorative and simple nature (3)

Finally, the General Court confirmed that, due to its simplicity, the mark would be perceived merely as a decorative or ornamental feature rather than as an indication of commercial origin. The General Court agreed with the Grand Board’s conclusion that such basic patterns are commonly used for embellishment and are unlikely to be recognized as trade marks by the relevant public, thus confirming the mark’s lack of distinctive character.

Outcome and implications

The General Court ultimately confirmed the mark’s lack of inherent distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) EUTMR and dismissed KnitPro’s appeal in full. The case now returns to the EUIPO Cancellation Division for a determination on whether the mark has acquired distinctive character through use.

This judgment reaffirms the high bar for registering decorative or geometric patterns as EU trade marks, especially when they are likely to be perceived as part of a product’s surface or shape. Businesses seeking to protect such marks should consider submitting robust evidence of acquired distinctiveness or incorporating clear branding elements that can signal origin independently.