On Friday 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) delivered its judgment in Case C-452/24, Lunapark Scandinavia Oy Ltd v Hardeco Finland Oy. The case was referred to the Court by the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein oikeus) in the context of a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of the sign “DRACULA” on confectionery goods. The referring national court sought clarification on whether national law on requiring rights to be exercised within a reasonable time could limit the enforcement of trademark rights under the Trademark Directive (Directive 2015/2436), outside of the specific conditions laid down in Articles 9 and 18 of that Directive.
In its judgment, the Court held that Article 10 of the Trademark Directive constitutes a provision of maximum harmonisation, meaning that EU Member States may not introduce additional limitations on the rights conferred by a registered trademark beyond those expressly provided in the Directive. The Court further confirmed that Article 18(1) of the Directive, which governs limitations due to acquiescence, is also a provision of maximum harmonisation. As a result, Articles 10 and 18(1) of the Directive preclude national laws that limit the right of a proprietor of a registered trademark to prohibit the use by a third party of a sign identical with, or similar to, that trademark for identical or similar goods, except where the conditions for acquiescence under the Directive are met.
Background and Facts
Lunapark Scandinavia v Hardeco Finland concerns a trademark dispute in Finland between Lunapark Scandinavia Oy Ltd (Lunapark) and Hardeco Finland Oy (Hardeco), centering on the use of the ‘DRACULA’ mark for confectionery products. Lunapark is the registered proprietor of the DRACULA trademark, which was filed in August 2003 and registered in August 2009. Since its registration, Lunapark has marketed confectionery in Finland using packaging that prominently features the word ‘DRACULA’ and associated figurative elements depicting the Dracula character.
However, the use of the DRACULA sign in the Finnish confectionery market predates Lunapark’s registration. A separate company, Karkkimies Oy (Candyman Ltd), had been importing and selling confectionery products under the same sign for several years prior to 2003. Crucially, Karkkimies never acquired any formal trademark rights, neither through registration, nor through demonstrable use that would confer protection under national law in Finland. There was also no agreement between Karkkimies and Lunapark regarding the use of the ‘DRACULA’ sign.
Hardeco Finland Oy acquired Karkkimies in October 2019, and continued its business operations, including the use of the ‘DRACULA’ sign on confectionery packaging. From November 2019, Hardeco began importing and selling products in Finland that bore the same word and figurative signs associated with the Dracula character.
On 6 October 2020, Lunapark initiated legal proceedings before the Market Court of Finland (Markkinaoikeus). It sought a declaration that Hardeco’s conduct infringed its exclusive rights to the DRACULA trademark, an injunction prohibiting further use, and compensation for damages. Hardeco contested the claim, arguing that Lunapark had forfeited its enforcement rights due to prolonged inactivity. It invoked private law in Finland, which holds that a party must assert its rights within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the relevant facts.
At first instance, the Market Court in its judgment acknowledged that the signs used by Hardeco were identical to Lunapark’s registered mark, and applied to the same category of goods. It found that Hardeco’s use created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. However, the court dismissed Lunapark’s claims. It reasoned that Lunapark’s failure to act against Karkkimies over many years amounted to a loss of rights under national law, even though Hardeco itself had not acquired any exclusive rights to the sign.
The Market Court also held that the long-standing parallel use of the ‘DRACULA’ sign by both Lunapark and Karkkimies had not eliminated the likelihood of confusion. Nonetheless, it concluded that Lunapark’s inactivity had led to the revocation of its right to bring proceedings, based on the notion that rights must be exercised within a reasonable time. The fact that the sign was now used by Hardeco, rather than Karkkimies, was deemed irrelevant, as the goods and branding remained essentially the same.
Lunapark appealed the judgment of the Market Court to the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein oikeus). Leave to appeal was granted on narrow grounds, focusing on whether Lunapark had lost its right to enforce the trademark due to its prior inaction.
The Supreme Court of Finland expressed uncertainty over whether national law, providing for a requirement to act within a reasonable time, was compatible with the Trademark Directive (Directive 2015/2436). Specifically, the Supreme Court of Finland sought clarification from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a reference for a preliminary ruling, on whether Article 10 of the Trademark Directive precludes the application of national law that would cause a trademark proprietor to lose enforcement rights due to inactivity.
The Supreme Court of Finland’s precise question was therefore:
‘Does Article 10 of Trademark Directive (EU) 2015/2436 preclude the application, in a dispute concerning a trade mark infringement, of a national principle whereby the proprietor of a trade mark, also in cases other than those covered by Article 18(1) and Article 9(1) or (2) of the Trade Mark Directive, could forfeit the right conferred on him or her by Article 10(2) and (3) to prohibit a third party from using a sign the use of which adversely affects or is liable adversely to affect one of the functions of the trade mark, on the ground that, though being aware of the use of the mark, he or she has not applied for prohibition of that use within a reasonable time?’
In effect, the Court was being asked to determine whether Article 10 of the Trademark Directive precludes the application of a national law that allows a trademark proprietor to lose enforcement rights due to inactivity, outside the specific conditions laid down in Articles 9 and 18 of the Directive.
Judgment of the Court
The Court noted that the Trademark Directive confers exclusive rights on the proprietor of a registered trademark, allowing them to prevent third parties from using identical or similar signs under certain conditions.
The Court reaffirmed that Article 10 of the Directive – on rights conferred by a trade mark – effects a complete harmonisation of the rights conferred by a trade mark. It cited its earlier case law to emphasise that EU Member States cannot introduce additional limitations beyond those provided in the Directive. In other words, Article 10 of the Directive is a provision that is to be considered maximum harmonisation.
Furthermore, Article 18(1) of the Directive states:
‘In infringement proceedings, the proprietor of a trade mark shall not be entitled to prohibit the use of a later registered mark where that later trade mark would not be declared invalid pursuant to Article 8, Article 9(1) or (2) or Article 46(3).’’
Article 18(1) of the Directive – limitations due to acquiescence – limits infringement actions where the later mark cannot be invalidated under Article 9 of the Directive. The Court rejected the view that periods of inactivity penalises trade marks as a matter of national law, holding that national law cannot override the harmonised framework of the Directive. Article 18(1) of the Directive was also a provision of maximum harmonisation.
By confirming that Articles 10 and 18(1) of the Directive are provisions of maximum harmonisation, the Court stated that, consequently, EU Member States cannot therefore have national law that limits the enforcement of trademark rights.
The Court distinguished between situations involving two registered trademarks (where acquiescence under Article 9 of the Directive may apply, and cases like the present one) where the infringing mark is not protected by registration or acquired rights. In such cases, the Directive does not permit national courts to impose further limitations based on inactivity.
In other words, the Court found that the Trademark Directive does not allow a trademark proprietor to lose enforcement rights simply due to inactivity, unless the conditions for acquiescence (e.g. five years of tolerance of a later registered mark) are met. Since Hardeco had no registered or acquired rights to the DRACULA sign, the Court in effect ruled in favour of Lunapark’s position.
Read the judgment
The judgment of the Court in Case C-452/24, Lunapark Scandinavia Oy Ltd v Hardeco Finland Oy, referred to the Court by the Supreme Court of Finland (Korkein oikeus), delivered on Friday 1 August 2025, can be read here.