The General Court of the European Union has once again emphasized that genuine use of a trademark is not determined solely by the geographic extent of its use, but by the commercial reality of the market in which it operates. In a recent case regarding hotel and restaurant services, the court confirmed that an online presence, social media, customer reviews and booking platforms can be sufficient evidence to prove genuine use of an EU trade mark.
In the trademark world, few warnings ring truer than “use it or lose it”. Behind this adage lies a simple rule, but one which has huge practical consequences: a registered trademark cannot remain indefinitely on the register if it is not put to real use in the market. The genuine use requirement is designed to avoid purely defensive or speculative trademark registrations and to safeguard the essential function of a trademark: to identify a specific commercial origin. In the case of EU trademarks, this requirement is particularly important because protection is conferred throughout the European Union, even though it is not always necessary to demonstrate uniform use in all the Member States.
The matter becomes more complex when the trademark owner is not a large multinational with a physical presence in several countries, but rather a local business that provides services in a very specific market. Consider, for example, a boutique hotel, a destination restaurant, or a hospitality establishment whose customers arrive through search engines, booking platforms, social media, and online reviews. In those cases, the use of the trademark may be physically confined to a single location, but its commercial impact may extend far beyond its immediate surroundings. The General Court recently confirmed that this digital reality could also be relevant when assessing whether a mark has been put to genuine use.
The OX case: local use with a European impact
The case in question stems from a judgment issued by the General Court on February 25, 2026 in case T‑297/25, regarding the figurative trademark Ox. The dispute centered on a very specific question: whether the use of a trademark by an establishment located in a single city could be sufficient to demonstrate genuine use within the European Union. The mark was used in relation to a restaurant located in Braunschweig (Germany), and the question was whether such use, despite being geographically confined to a single location, was sufficient to preserve the mark’s registration.
In this case, the General Court upheld the decision by the Board of Appeal that had found that the international registration designating the EU had been put to genuine use for restaurant and hotel services. The evidence submitted included uninterrupted operation since 2010, seven-figure annual turnover, except for the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, invoices, booking system records, online presence, social media engagement, customer reviews, and mentions in a German-language guide.
The importance of the case does not lie in the court simply relaxing the genuine use requirement, but rather in its adoption of a realistic assessment of the market. The General Court underscored that genuine use of an EUTM does not need to extend across the entire EU and depends on the characteristics of the goods or services and the relevant market. In certain cases, use within the territory of a single Member State may suffice to evidence genuine use. This conclusion is particularly important for some sectors such as the hospitality and restaurant industries and experience-based services, where the physical location of the establishment does not preclude the existence of international or cross-border customers.
The court also confirmed that the use of the mark on social media and online platforms, including Facebook and TripAdvisor, could constitute relevant evidence of genuine use when it allows the services to be associated with the undertaking offering them. This aspect is especially relevant as many bsinesses are better able to document their digital presence rather than their physical presence. Bookings, reviews, publications, mentions in guides, customer photographs and verified profiles can form part of the body of evidence demonstrating that a mark has been put to genuine use. The key point, however, is that this evidence should not be submitted in isolation, but tied to the actual provision of the services in question.
Digital evidence does not replace genuine use
The OX case does not mean that an Instagram account or a TripAdvisor profile automatically constitute proof of genuine use. What it confirms is much more nuanced: digital activity can be relevant if it proves genuine commercial use and if it enables the mark to be linked to the services offered. In other words, an online presence alone is insufficient; it must reflect genuine commercial activity. In the OX case, the digital evidence was assessed together with other objective aspects such as turnover, invoices and booking records.
This approach is consistent with another recent line of case law concerning proof of use. In case T‑564/24, regarding the figurative mark Lav, the General Court annulled a decision of the Board of Appeal due to requiring an excessive burden of proof from the trademark owner. The General Court emphasized that proof of genuine use must be based on solid and objective evidence, but that it could not require exhaustive cross-referencing of thousands of invoice lines with catalogs. It also held that imposing an unreasonable burden of proof breached the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Both cases point to a useful trend for trademark owners and litigants alike. On the one hand, proof of use must be reliable, consistent and objective. On the other hand, it cannot be turned into a disproportionate evidentiary burden requiring the trademark owner to document every sale, every booking, or every commercial transaction in excessive detail. The analysis must be global and take into account the nature of the sector. This is particularly relevant in businesses in which the evidence is distributed between both physical and digital channels.
Social media, booking platforms and reviews: how they can help
Digitalization has changed the way in which consumers meet and evaluate hospitality and restaurant services. A restaurant may receive bookings through online platforms, be discovered through digital maps, build its reputation through reviews and attract customers through social media. For a hotel a large part of its relationship with customers may take place before they actually arrive at the establishment. This digital footprint can be extremely valuable in proving that a trademark is not simply lying dormant on the register, but is very much alive in the market.
However, not all digital evidence has the same value. An isolated post, with no clear date, no connection to the trademark or no link to a specific commercial activity, will carry less weight than a well-organized body of evidence. Screenshots or records that clearly identify the trademark, period of use, services offered, interaction with customers and demonstrate a link to bookings or the actual provision of the services will be more useful. It would also be important to preserve documents that link the online activity to commercial data such as turnover, bookings, campaigns or mentions in specialized guides.
The OX case offers a practical lesson for small and medium-sized businesses. There is no need to wait for a revocation action to compile evidence of genuine use. It is advisable to systematically keep invoices, booking reports, platform statistics, dated screenshots of profiles, noteworthy customer reviews, mentions in the media or guides, advertising materials and internal records evidencing the continuous use of the mark. If the company also uses the mark as a trade name or the name of the establishment, the General Court has confirmed that this does not preclude it from functioning simultaneously as a trademark, provided that the sign is clearly used in connection with the services offered.
An opportunity for local brands with an international reach
The OX case is particularly interesting because it challenges a common assumption: that an EU trademark must always be used across a broad geographic area to survive. This idea is too rigid. Case law accepts that in certain markets, use in a particular area can be sufficient if that use is real and commercially significant. Hospitality is a good example because the service is provided in a particular area, whereas attracting customers, promotion and reputation may extend far beyond that location.
This line of reasoning may benefit independent hotels, destination restaurants, wineries offering tours and tastings, cultural venues, specialized clinics, wellness centers, or other local businesses whose customers come from different geographic areas. It may also be relevant for Spanish trademarks that do not have a physical pan-European network, but can demonstrate that they have an international customer base. In those cases, digital evidence should not be viewed as merely ancillary, but as an essential part of the mark’s defensive strategy. The question is not just the extent to which the mark has been used, but how to prove that use in a market in which the consumer experience often starts online.
The message for trademark owners is clear. The trademark must be used consistently, visibly and in connection with the registered goods or services. Evidence should be preserved methodically, rather than hastily assembled once a revocation action is brought. In addition, digital presence should be managed not solely as a marketing tool, but also as part of a trademark’s legal defense. In an environment in which reviews, platforms and social media directly influence purchasing decisions, these aspects can also help to prove that the trademark is fulfilling its function in the marketplace.
Braulio Robles
