EU General Court Confirms IMPRESS Is A Laudatory Trademark

The General Court of the European Union has confirmed the rejection of the IMPRESS mark on the grounds that it is a laudatory trademark. Armelle Blachier explains the grounds of the decision and the challenges of establishing distinctiveness in such cases. 

On 11 March 2026, the EU General Court ruled in case T326/25, concerning the assessment of the laudatory nature of the IMPRESS word trademark application filed at the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in classes 3 and 8. 

Background to the case 

In April 2024, the American company Kiss Nail Products, Inc. filed the word mark IMPRESS to designate, in classes 3 and 8, make-up, skin and nail care products, as well as manicure and pedicure tools. Based on Article 7(1)(b) of the EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR), the EUIPO refused its registration for lack of distinctive character, recalling that: 

• a trademark must make it possible to identify the commercial origin of the goods, and
• refusal can be justified even if the lack of distinctiveness exists only in part of the EU. 

The Board of Appeal upheld the rejection. In its view, the term IMPRESS, in conjunction with products intended to improve appearance, would be perceived by the public as the promise of a 'strong, long-lasting and favourable' result, thus being purely laudatory rather than an indication of origin. The applicant then brought an action before the EU General Court, arguing first that, although laudatory, the sign nevertheless retains a distinctive character that, while admittedly weak, is sufficient for registration. 

Plea one and trademark distinctiveness 

In its judgment of 11 March 2026, the EU General Court used the case as an opportunity to recall the rules for assessing trademark distinctiveness; namely, that distinctiveness must be assessed in relation to the product(s)/service(s) for which registration was sought and the perception of the relevant public. The distinctive character of a trademark is – let us not forget – a substantive condition required for its registration. 

—Can laudatory trademarks be distinctive? 

Moving to the criteria for assessing distinctiveness character in the context of the laudatory character of a trademark, the Court recalls that trademarks consisting of an advertising slogan, an indication of quality or an expression encouraging the purchase of the goods or services designated may be considered distinctive and, therefore, accepted for registration. In such cases, stricter criteria should not be applied than those applicable to other signs. 

To satisfy that condition, however, those marks must not be reduced to an ordinary advertising message. Rather, they must possess a certain originality or resonance and require a minimum of effort of interpretation or trigger a cognitive process in the part of the public concerned. 

Such marks will be regarded as devoid of any distinctive character if they are likely to be perceived by the relevant public only as a mere promotional formula. 

—Who is the relevant public? 

In its judgment, the court agreed with the perception of the relevant public adopted by EUIPO in this case; namely: 

• the general public whose level of attention tends to be relatively low regarding promotional indications, and
• given IMPRESS is an English term, it is appropriate to base it on the perception of the English-speaking public of the EU. 

The court also adopted the definition of the term IMPRESS of the examiner and then of the Board of Appeal as set out in the Collins English Dictionary, namely: ‘to make an impression on; have a strong, lasting, or favourable effect on’ and that ‘to “impress” someone is to make someone notice one’s person’.  

The court considered that the public would clearly and immediately establish a link between the term IMPRESS and the goods referred to in the application and that, in fact, the term IMPRESS, composed of a simple English verb, conveys an immediate, direct, clear message. Furthermore, the message conveyed by the sign IMPRESS is “banal and self-explanatory and would not require any mental effort on the part of the relevant consumers to perceive it spontaneously as such”. 

The court concluded that the message thus conveyed, which is equivalent to a laudatory formula, can be qualified as an indication of quality or an expression encouraging people to seek out or buy these products. In other words, the mark applied for, IMPRESS, is laudatory in nature and is intended to highlight the qualities and purpose of the goods. 

—Can a vague promotion be distinctive? 

The court pointed out that, even if IMPRESS merely conveys a general promotional message without describing a specific quality of the goods, that is not sufficient to confer distinctive character on the sign. In so ruling, it responded to the applicant's argument that the term, which is too vague and positive to refer to specific features, should be considered weakly distinctive. The court recalled that the requirement of distinctiveness goes beyond that of descriptiveness: a sign can be refused even if it does not describe the goods. 

It also confirmed that the word mark IMPRESS, devoid of any other graphic or word element, has neither originality nor imagination to give it a minimum of distinctive character. 

The court concluded that the sign was incapable of performing the essential function of the trademark; namely, to identify the commercial origin of the goods and to allow the consumer to repeat or avoid a purchase based on his or her experience. 

Plea two: Trademark distinctiveness case law in the EU 

In the second plea, the applicant used the existence of an earlier registration of the word mark IMPRESS, dating from 2011, for identical or very similar goods in classes 3 and 8, to argue that the Board of Appeal had infringed the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.  

However, the court rejected this argument, finding that the mere fact that signs identical or similar to the application for the contested mark have been registered in the past does not mean that the trademark application in the present case has distinctive character, adding that an applicant cannot rely on previous cases to obtain an identical decision. 

A strict application of distinctiveness for laudatory marks 

In short, this case illustrates, once again, the low distinctiveness of laudatory marks and confirms a stricter assessment by the EUIPO, even though an identical sign had been accepted for registration in 2011. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.