Will you lose your trademark rights by sitting still against an unregistered sign?

A competitor has been using a sign very similar to your registered trademark for years, but you have never acted against it. Has this inaction then caused you to lose your rights? A judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of Aug. 1, 2025 says not.

This ruling in the case Lunapark/Hardeco (C-452/24) confirms the strong protection afforded by a trademark registration. Our lawyers specializing in trademark law, follow these developments closely to provide you with the most accurate advice in the trademark law provide.

The facts: the Finnish "Dracula" candy store

The case revolved around the Finnish company Lunapark, holder of the registered trademark "DRACULA" for candy. Another company, Hardeco, sold candies under an identical, but unregistered, sign. When Lunapark initiated infringement proceedings, Hardeco defended itself, arguing that Lunapark had lost its right to act due to years of inaction. The Finnish court went along with this on the basis of a general Finnish legal principle of estoppel. The case eventually ended up in the European Court of Justice.

Court of Justice's verdict: European trademark law is conclusive

The Court of Justice was very clear in its ruling. The European Trademark Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/2436) provides a full harmonisation of the rules governing the rights of trademark owners.

The Court reasoned that the grounds on which a trademark owner's exclusive rights can be limited, are exhaustively listed in the directive. The directive provides only for loss of rights through forbearance when one deliberately avoided for five years the use of a later registered younger mark has tolerated (arts. 9 and 18).

Thus, a member state cannot add additional restrictions or grounds for loss of rights through national legislation or general principles of law, such as the Finnish principle of estoppel against an unregistered sign.

The specific situation in Belgium: no autonomous legal processing

For Belgian lawyers and entrepreneurs, this ruling is less revolutionary than it first appears. Unlike Finland, after all, Belgian law does not recognize the principle of estoppel as a stand-alone legal figure.

Already in a judgment of May 17, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that a subjective right is not extinguished merely because its holder adopts an attitude objectively incompatible with that right and thus misleads the legitimate expectations of another . This jurisprudence has been constantly confirmed since then.

In Belgium, a situation of prolonged inactivity by a trademark owner is generally assessed in the context of abuse of law Whether the moderating effect of good faith (today Articles 1.10 and 5.74 of the Civil Code). However, the Court of Justice's ruling is also relevant here: while these national doctrines may be the exercise of a right (e.g., limit the award of damages), but they cannot be invoked to limit the core of harmonized trademark law - completely deprive the right to seek an injunction against the infringement - on a ground not provided for in the European directive.

Specifically, what does this mean for you?

1. Trademark registration is your strongest weapon: This ruling once again underscores the fundamental advantage of an official trademark registration. It is the cornerstone of enforceable protection.
2. Your injunction claim stands: Even if you have not acted for years against an infringer without a registered trademark, in principle you do not lose your right to stop that infringement. This was already largely accepted in Belgium, but is now reinforced by European law.
3. Mitigation of claims remains possible: While your right to seek injunctive relief remains intact, a judge may well rule on the basis of abuse of law that late claiming high damages is a bridge too far. Thus, strategic consideration remains necessary.

Conclusion and advice

The Lunapark-ruling confirms that European trademark law is a strong and uniform bastion for protecting registered trademarks. For Belgian trademark owners, this already means that inaction does not automatically lead to the loss of your fundamental rights.