EU General Court rejects bad-faith and copyright challenge to lightoptics trademark

The ruling highlights the evidentiary burden on businesses seeking to invalidate an EU trademark based on earlier copyright or alleged dishonest intent by the applicant.

The General Court of the European Union has dismissed a challenge by Polish optical equipment company Salumanus sp. z o.o. to the registration of the figurative lightoptics trademark, finding that the company had failed to establish an earlier copyright in the sign or provide sufficient evidence of bad faith by the trademark owner.

In its October 7, 2026, judgment in Salumanus v. EUIPO (T-631/25), the court upheld the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) decision to reject the invalidity application against the mark registered by Hong Kong-based Heyoptics Co. Ltd. The dispute concerned goods and services in Classes 9 and 35, including fiber-optic cables, electrical connectors, telecommunications equipment, advertising, and marketing services.

Salumanus had relied on two grounds for invalidity under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001: Article 60(2)(c), concerning earlier copyright, and Article 59(1)(b), concerning bad faith when applying for a trademark. The court rejected both grounds and dismissed the action in its entirety.

Earlier copyright requires proof of ownership

Salumanus applied to EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity on September 8, 2023, arguing that it had created the sign before Heyoptics filed its trademark application on November 1, 2021. Under Article 60(2)(c) of the EU Trademark Regulation, an EU trademark may be declared invalid where its use can be prohibited under an earlier copyright protected by the applicable national or EU law.

However, an applicant relying on this provision must establish the acquisition, continued existence and scope of protection of the earlier right. Where national law applies, the applicant must also clearly identify the relevant legal provisions or case law.

Salumanus submitted a range of evidence, including correspondence, variations of the sign, a contract with a graphic designer, product photographs, invoices, and website material. The General Court found that the evidence did not establish clearly and unequivocally that Salumanus had created the sign before the contested trademark application.

The contract with the graphic designer did not refer to the development of the sign, while images of products bearing the sign did not establish who had created it. Other documents likewise failed to demonstrate authorship. The court also noted that notarized extracts from the websites lightoptics.co.uk and fibermarkt.com were dated January 14, 2025, more than three years after the trademark application. They therefore could not establish the existence of an earlier copyright.

The court concluded that the evidence submitted during the EUIPO proceedings did not demonstrate that Salumanus had created the sign before November 1, 2021. Its arguments concerning the interpretation and application of Polish copyright law could not alter that conclusion.

New evidence could not repair the case

The judgment also addresses the limits of introducing evidence for the first time before the General Court. Salumanus sought to rely on emails from 2018 and 2021 that had not been submitted during the administrative proceedings before EUIPO. The company explained that the correspondence had been archived and had taken considerable time and resources to retrieve.

The court declared the additional evidence inadmissible. Its role was to review the legality of the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision in light of the factual and legal circumstances available to that body. The fact that the documents might complement the existing evidence, or that Salumanus had experienced difficulties retrieving them, did not justify introducing them for the first time during the judicial proceedings.

The ruling reinforces the importance of building a complete evidentiary record before EUIPO, particularly where the outcome depends on establishing the creation and ownership of an earlier intellectual property right.

Similar signs do not prove bad faith on their own

Salumanus also argued that Heyoptics had acted in bad faith under Article 59(1)(b) of the EU Trademark Regulation. The company alleged that Heyoptics had copied its sign and appropriated product photographs to exploit its commercial achievements and restrict its access to the market.

The General Court reiterated that bad faith must be assessed by reference to all relevant circumstances existing at the time the trademark application was filed. The assessment can include whether the applicant knew or should have known of a third party’s use of an identical or similar sign, the applicant’s intentions, and the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the signs concerned.

The court emphasized that the burden of proving bad faith rested with Salumanus. The trademark applicant’s good faith was presumed unless sufficient evidence established otherwise. In this case, the evidence did not show that Heyoptics knew, or should have known, of Salumanus’ earlier use of the sign. Salumanus’ assertion that its sign was well known in the relevant sector was also unsubstantiated.

The court acknowledged that knowledge of another party’s use can, in appropriate circumstances, be inferred from factors such as the duration of that use and general awareness within the relevant economic sector. However, Salumanus had not provided sufficient evidence to support that inference in this dispute.

Nor had the company established that Heyoptics intended to prevent its use of the sign or otherwise exclude it from the market. The court therefore found that the arguments and evidence presented were insufficient to demonstrate bad faith at the date of the trademark application.

Implications for trademark owners

The judgment illustrates the distinct evidentiary requirements for invalidity claims based on earlier copyright and bad faith. A company relying on copyright must establish that it owns a qualifying earlier right and demonstrate that the protected work existed before the contested trademark application. Evidence of commercial use, standing alone, may not establish authorship.

Similarly, a bad-faith claim requires evidence supporting the alleged applicant’s knowledge and intentions at the relevant date. Similarity between signs, overlapping commercial activities, and suspicions of copying may form part of the assessment, but they do not automatically establish dishonest intent.

The decision also highlights the procedural importance of submitting relevant evidence during the EUIPO proceedings rather than attempting to fill evidentiary gaps before the General Court. The court dismissed Salumanus’ action in its entirety and ordered the company to pay the costs.

For businesses seeking to protect branding across jurisdictions, the decision serves as a reminder to maintain dated records of logo creation, agreements with designers, copyright ownership, and commercial use, while ensuring that any invalidity claim is supported by evidence addressing the specific legal grounds relied upon.

← Back to News