The General Court of the European Union has annulled, in judgment T-24/25, a decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. The word mark “Obelix”, registered for goods in Nice Class 13 (arms and ammunition), must be re-examined for invalidity. The applicant, Les Éditions Albert René, had relied on Art. 60(1)(a) read together with Art. 8(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, arguing that its comic-book mark — in use since the 1960s — was suffering reputational damage. The Board of Appeal had rejected the application on two grounds: the reputation of the earlier mark was not sufficiently established, and any conceptual link failed in any event because of the distance between the classes. The General Court strikes down both lines of reasoning.

The underlying mechanism has been settled law since CJEU C-252/07 (Intel), yet it is regularly overlooked in filing practice. Art. 8(5) EUTMR covers dissimilar goods where three cumulative conditions are met: a mark with a reputation, a conceptual link in the mind of the relevant public, and one of three forms of detriment — unfair advantage, dilution, or tarnishment. The Nice classification carries no normative weight in this analysis. Putting “Obelix” on ammunition shifts the association into a register that the applicant neither occupies nor controls — the textbook tarnishment scenario.

Operationally, this reshapes M&A due diligence. A target’s trade mark portfolio is not fully reviewed if the Art. 8(5) EUTMR analysis is missing. An SPA warranty in the form “no infringement of third-party trade marks in the registered classes” does not cover the T-24/25 scenario; it protects against likelihood of confusion, not against Art. 8(5) EUTMR claims. Anyone filing in Class 13 must now — as Intel confirmed and T-24/25 reinforces — run a parallel check of Classes 16, 28, and 41, where publishing, toy, and entertainment marks sit.

The same logic tightens clearance searches ahead of a rebrand or product launch. A search limited to identical and similar goods is no longer adequate. External trade mark opinions must incorporate the reputation track; the workload increases. In-house, this line item belongs in the launch budget, not in the damage-control phase after the first cease-and-desist letter.

The substantive question remains open. The General Court has remitted the case to the Board of Appeal for fresh consideration rather than deciding it outright. An appeal to the Court of Justice is available within two months and ten days of notification of the judgment (Art. 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU); if either party appeals, the Board of Appeal proceedings are stayed pending that outcome. The actual tarnishment proof under Intel, paragraph 29 — demonstrating that use of the later mark impairs the repute of the well-known mark — has yet to be made. Those wanting to calibrate the judgment’s reach should watch the Board of Appeal’s next substantive decision on remittal, which in practice tends to follow within a few months to eighteen months.