4 EKİM 2025
The CJEU’s “Dracula” Judgment (C-452/24): Harmonisation of Acquiescence and the Exclusion of National Forfeiture Doctrines
In its judgment of 1 August 2025 in Lunapark v Hardeco (C-452/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) addressed the interplay between the harmonised framework of acquiescence under the EU Trademark Directive and national doctrines of forfeiture of rights. The ruling constitutes a significant clarification of the extent to which Member States may supplement EU trademark law with domestic principles limiting enforcement actions.
Factual context
The dispute arose between two Finnish undertakings active in the confectionery sector, both using the sign DRACULA. Lunapark applied for the national registration of DRACULA in 2003, which was granted in 2009. Its competitor, Karkkimies, had simultaneously marketed sweets under the same name without holding any registered or unregistered rights. Following Hardeco’s acquisition of Karkkimies in 2020, Lunapark initiated infringement proceedings.
At first instance, the Finnish Market Court dismissed Lunapark’s claims, invoking a long-standing principle of Finnish private law requiring applicants to act within a reasonable time after becoming aware of relevant facts.
Legal reasoning of the “CJEU”
The CJEU rejected the application of such national principles. Relying on Budějovický Budvar (C-482/09), the Court held that Article 18(1) of the EU Trade Mark Directive provides exhaustive harmonisation of the conditions under which acquiescence may restrict a trade mark proprietor’s rights. Importantly, the provision contemplates only the acquiescence in respect of a later registered mark and excludes its application to mere unregistered use.
Since neither Karkkimies nor Hardeco possessed registered rights in the DRACULA sign, Article 18(1) was inapplicable. Nevertheless, the Court went further and declared that the Directive precludes Member States from applying general principles of forfeiture of rights to bar enforcement in situations not expressly covered by Article 18(1).
Doctrinal and practical implications
The ruling departs from the Court’s earlier approach in design law (Gautzsch, C-479/12), where extinction of rights and limitation defences were left to national law due to legislative silence. In contrast, the CJEU now considers that, in the context of trade marks, harmonisation is complete and national doctrines are excluded, even where the Directive does not explicitly address unregistered signs.
The immediate implication is that forfeiture of rights cannot be invoked in cases involving unregistered infringing signs. While the decision does not preclude the operation of statutes of limitation or abuse of rights defences under national law, it restricts Member States from developing general private-law limitations on enforcement inconsistent with the Directive’s framework.
Conclusion
The Dracula judgment reaffirms the principle that trademark registration is indispensable for legal certainty. It strengthens the uniform application of EU trademark law and narrows the space for national legal doctrines, thereby advancing the broader objective of ensuring consistency and predictability in the protection of intellectual property rights across the Union.
Saygılarımızla,
YÖRÜKOĞLU & PARTNERS
Avukatlık | Hukuki Danışmanlık