In its judgment on the 7th of October 2026 (Case T‑9/26), the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) annulled the decision by which the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO upheld the rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the figurative trademark “MID season For When It’s Not Quite Cold Not Quite Warm”, registered for leather goods, clothing and the related retail services. The General Court held that the Board had erred in finding that “mid-season” had no specific meaning in the fashion sector capable of rendering the sign devoid of distinctive character. That error tainted the assessment both of the sign’s characters: the descriptive and the distinctive one, in breach of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) of EU Regulation 2017/1001.
The facts
The sign, filed on 2 December 2022 and reproduced below, covers Classes 18 (bags, suitcases, etc.), 25 (clothing, footwear, etc.) and 35 (retail and wholesale services, including online, relating to clothing, accessories, etc.) of the Nice Classification.
In December 2023, Milestone Sportswear Handels GmbH files an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trademark in question. According to Milestone, the trademark should be declared invalid because it had been registered in breach of Article 7. In particular, Article 7(1)(b) excludes from registration trademarks that are devoid of distinctive character, while point (c) excludes trademarks consisting exclusively of signs or indications that may serve, in trade, to designate the intended purpose or other characteristics of the goods or services.
On January 31st, 2025, the Cancellation Division rejects the application for a declaration of invalidity. On November 12th, 2025, the Second Board of Appeal in turn dismisses the appeal against that decision, finding that the sign has no clear meaning that could be perceived as describing the characteristics of the goods and services. It concludes that the sign was allusive, but neither descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) nor devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of point (b). Milestone therefore brings that decision before the General Court under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the EUIPO decision and a declaration that the trademark is invalid.
The General Court’s decision
In the proceedings before the General Court, Milestone argues that, given its established use in the fashion industry, “mid-season” should be understood, without further explanation, as referring to clothing and accessories for the transitional seasons, particularly in view of the explanatory phrase also appearing in the trademark: “For When It’s Not Quite Cold Not Quite Warm”. In Milestone’s view, this meant that Article 7(1)(c) had been infringed along with point (b), since the public would perceive the sign merely as an advertising message rather than as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services. The EUIPO, for its part, argues that: (i) “mid-season” should be understood exclusively as the middle of one of the four seasons; (ii) the expression is so obscure to the public that no concrete descriptive meaning can be inferred from it, even when combined with the accompanying phrase; (iii) there is no evidence that the expression is commonly used in the fashion industry in the sense claimed by Milestone; and (iv) it is therefore neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.
The General Court, by contrast, gives weight to the evidence submitted by Milestone, including dictionary extracts and website materials, and concludes that the Board could not, in fact, disregard that in at least one of its possible meanings, the expression “mid season” refers to these transitional seasons, particularly in light of the accompanying phrase mentioned above, which is immediately understandable to an English-speaking public.
The General Court therefore finds that the error concerning the meaning of the expression has tainted the Board’s analysis of the link between the sign and the goods/services, as required for the application of Article 7. It concludes that the trademark has indeed been registered in breach of Article 7(1)(c) and (b).
The General Court accordingly annuls the contested decision.
One final clarification: the trademark has not been declared invalid. The request for a declaration of invalidity was rejected for lack of jurisdiction because, in the context of judicial review under Article 263 TFEU, the General Court cannot issue declaratory judgments. The matter therefore returns to the EUIPO, which must comply with the judgment (unless the EUIPO decides to appeal).
