In T-297/25, the General Court (GC) confirmed that even a single restaurant in a relatively small German town can establish genuine use of an EU trade mark. The decision highlights that “local” does not necessarily mean “insufficient”, provided the overall commercial context shows real market presence beyond the immediate location.

From Braunschweig to Luxembourg

At first glance, the facts seem unremarkable: a steakhouse in Braunschweig operating under the name “OX”. But the legal question was far from simple. Can such a local business maintain EU-wide trade mark protection? The EUIPO had initially revoked the trade mark for non-use, but the Board of Appeal reversed that finding in part, accepting genuine use for hospitality services. The General Court has now confirmed that assessment.

What makes the judgment interesting is not simply the outcome, but the way the court got there. In confirming genuine use for services for providing food and drink, it focused on three familiar factors:

1. the nature of the use;
2. the place of the use; and
3. the extent of the use. 

Together, they paint a picture of a business that may have been local in location but was not local in any narrow commercial sense.

Nature of use: more than a name on the door

On the nature of use, the court accepted that “OX” did more than identify the business behind the restaurant. That matters because a company name does not automatically function as a trade mark.

Here, however, the sign was used consistently in ways that connected it directly with the restaurant services: on business papers, cutlery, staff clothing, the website and in advertising. In the court’s view, that was enough to show that “OX” was being used not merely as the name of a company, but also as a trade mark for the services themselves.

Place of use: beyond Braunschweig

Regarding the place of use, the court reiterated that there is no abstract minimum geographical area in which an EU trade mark must be used. Genuine use does not require activity across a large part of the EU; use in a single member state can be sufficient. Just as importantly, the court distinguished between the place where the services are actually provided and the place where the trade mark is used. For service businesses, that is a significant distinction. A restaurant may operate from one city only, but its trade mark may be used more broadly through advertising and online presence beyond its immediate location.

That was precisely the case here. The restaurant itself was in Braunschweig, but the court found that the place of use extended at least to Germany and Austria. It relied on German-language online advertising, more than 2,000 Facebook followers, TripAdvisor reviews in multiple languages, inclusion in a German-language guide to leading hotels and restaurants in Germany, and evidence that some guests came from other EU countries. In other words, the business may have had one front door, but the trade mark reached much further.

Extent of use: the numbers tell the story

As for the extent of the use, the evidence showed seven-figure annual turnover since 2015, supported by sample invoices and booking system extracts. The court also treated social media presence as a relevant part of the overall picture, because it demonstrated efforts to reach consumers.

In short 

This case is a useful reminder that a single business in one member state can be enough to establish genuine use of an EU trade mark, provided the evidence shows that the sign is being used as a trade mark, reaches beyond its immediate surroundings and is backed by real commercial activity.

Read alongside earlier case law, the judgment suggests that the key issue is not the size of the town or the fame of the venue, but whether the trade mark has been used and promoted beyond its immediate location. Reviews, guidebook mentions and social media metrics may support that assessment, but they may also say more about success than use. The clearest evidence is likely to remain advertising and other material showing that a trade mark was actively directed at a broader public.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: EU
Decision level: General Court
Parties: Heinz Thomas Alfendorger v EUIPO
Date: 07 July 2025
Citation: T-297/25
Decision: dycip.com/t297-25