Figurative elements do not preclude the descriptiveness of a composite sign: the General Court annuls the EUIPO decision on the “WASHTOWER” trademark
In its judgment of 12 November 2025 (Case T-252/24), the General Court of the European Union addressed the issue of descriptive trademarks, focusing on the delicate balance between evocative verbal elements and figurative components in composite signs.
The case concerned the European Union trademark WASHTOWER, registered in Class 20 of the Nice Classification for “furniture, namely furniture for washing machines or tumble dryers”, which was the subject of an application for a declaration of invalidity filed by LG Electronics Inc. (LG) on the basis of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR).
According to LG, the sign WASHTOWER (reproduced below) was entirely descriptive: the verbal element unambiguously referred to the nature and function of the goods, while the figurative element failed to provide any concrete distinctive contribution.
By contrast, the EUIPO, while acknowledging the clear descriptiveness of the word element, held that the figurative component – a complex emblem composed of bulls, plumage and scrollwork – was sufficient to confer distinctive character on the sign as a whole, thereby excluding the applicability of the absolute ground for refusal. On that basis, the application for invalidity was rejected, first by the Cancellation Division and subsequently by the Fifth Board of Appeal.
LG therefore brought an action before the General Court, arguing that the emblem was incapable of performing any distinctive function, as it merely constituted a generic and barely discernible decoration. According to LG, it amounted to an ornamental motif comparable to many others commonly found on the market, lacking the specificity required to counterbalance the clearly descriptive nature of the term “washtower”.
The decision
The General Court began by recalling the settled case law according to which a sign falls within the scope of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR where it has a sufficiently direct and specific relationship with the goods or services concerned, such that the relevant public can immediately perceive, without further reflection, the essential characteristics of those goods or services.
Having clarified this point, the Court turned to the visual and graphic structure of the contested sign.
As regards the verbal element, the General Court concurred with the findings of the Board of Appeal: the term “tower” directly refers to the “tower-like” shape of the furniture, while “wash” refers to the function of the household appliances intended to be installed within it. Taken together, the two terms describe, without ambiguity, the nature of the product and its characteristics.
The assessment of the figurative element, however, diverged from that adopted in the contested decision. While the General Court also acknowledged that the figurative element was not descriptive, as it bore no connection with the goods covered by the registration, it nevertheless found that such graphic element could not alter the overall perception of the sign by diverting the attention of the relevant public away from the descriptive message conveyed by the verbal element.
The assessment of the figurative element, however, diverged from that adopted in the contested decision. While the General Court also acknowledged that the figurative element was not descriptive, as it bore no connection with the goods covered by the registration, it nevertheless found that such graphic element could not alter the overall perception of the sign by diverting the attention of the relevant public away from the descriptive message conveyed by the verbal element.
Accordingly, having established the existence of the absolute ground for refusal under Article 7(1) EUTMR, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.