The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has rejected the application for the European Union trademark “LUX” filed by Rosalía Vila Tobella. The decision is based on the perception that the Romanian-speaking public in the European Union would have of the term, considering that it would not be understood as an indication of business origin, but rather as a promotional or laudatory reference to luxury, superior quality, or select products and services.
This case is relevant to any company or creator seeking to protect a name throughout the European Union. The unitary nature of the European trademark means that an obstacle identified in one part of the territory can prevent registration in all Member States.
What products and services was the LUX trademark intended to protect?
The European Union Intellectual Property Office has, in the first instance, rejected European Union trademark application No. 019198973 “LUX” filed by Rosalía Vila Tobella. This application sought to distinguish goods and services in classes 9, 25, and 41, which include, among others, musical recordings, downloadable audiovisual content, CDs, vinyl records, DVDs, eyewear, smartphones, cameras, headphones, smartwatches, electronic publications, clothing, footwear, and musical entertainment services and live performances.
The request therefore covered various areas related to the artist's musical activities and the commercial use of her image, ranging from recordings and digital publications to technology products, fashion, and live performances.
The proceedings began with an initial objection issued by the EUIPO on July 10, 2025. The applicant filed a response on September 11 of that year. After reviewing it, the Office issued a second notice of grounds for refusal on February 3, 2026, in which it elaborated on its analysis in greater detail. Since no further response was filed within the allotted time, the EUIPO upheld the objection and rejected the application on July 8, 2026.
Why does the EUIPO believe that "LUX" cannot be registered as a trademark?
The Office has determined that the sign “LUX” is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness for the Romanian-speaking public in the European Union. According to the EUIPO, that public would perceive the term as a direct reference to “luxury,” “superior quality,” “exclusive,” or “exceptional,” and not as an indication of commercial origin.
Consequently, the Office understands that LUX conveys a promotional or laudatory message applicable to the goods and services covered by the application, including musical recordings, audiovisual content, clothing, footwear, and entertainment services. In other words, consumers would not view LUX as a trademark that identifies the commercial origin of those goods or services, but rather as an indication that they are premium, exclusive, or high-quality.
Distinctiveness is precisely what enables a trademark to fulfill its essential function, which is none other than allowing consumers to associate certain products or services with a specific company and distinguish them from those of other operators. A promotional expression is not automatically excluded from registration, but it must also be capable of serving as an indication of the company’s origin.
According to the EUIPO, this is not the case with LUX. For the relevant public, the term would merely highlight a positive quality of the goods and services, without incorporating any unexpected element, wordplay, or particular construction that would require the consumer to make an interpretive effort. Therefore, the descriptive and laudatory perception would prevail over the distinctive function inherent in a trademark.
Is the denial based solely on the Romanian public?
Yes. Although in its first communication the EUIPO referred to both the English-speaking public and the Romanian-speaking public, in the second communication the objection focused solely on the perception of the European Union by the Romanian-speaking public. The final decision refers to the grounds set forth in that second communication, which the Office considers an integral part of the decision.
This point is particularly relevant because it confirms one of the distinctive features of the European Union trademark: it is sufficient for there to be a ground for refusal in any part of the Union for the application to be refused in its entirety. In this case, the EUIPO considered it sufficient that the term “LUX” was perceived by the Romanian-speaking public as a promotional or laudatory reference to luxury, superior quality, or select goods and services.
What arguments did the petitioner raise?
The applicant argued that the mark applied for was “LUX,” not the English term “luxury,” and therefore the two marks could not automatically be equated. She also challenged the linguistic sources used by the Office and contended that “LUX” could be understood to have other meanings, in particular as the unit of measurement for illumination or as the Latin term for “light.”
In addition, the party cited the existence of other trademark registrations that included the element “LUX,” both with the EUIPO itself and with the Romanian trademark office, and noted that an equivalent application had been accepted for publication in the United Kingdom.
The EUIPO rejected these arguments. In particular, it held that the fact that “LUX” might have other meanings did not preclude a finding that it was descriptive or laudatory if, for the relevant public, one of its possible connotations was luxury, superior quality, or exclusivity with respect to the goods and services claimed.
The Office also noted that the European Union trademark system is autonomous and is not bound by previous decisions of the EUIPO itself, national offices of Member States, or offices of third countries. Although such precedents may be taken into consideration, each application must be examined based on its specific goods and services, the relevant public, and the circumstances existing at the time of examination.
Therefore, the prior acceptance of other marks that incorporated “LUX” was not sufficient to alter the Office’s conclusion in this case.
Is the rejection of the LUX trademark final?
No. The decision was issued at first instance and may be appealed before the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO. The appeal must be filed within two months of notification, and the statement of grounds may be submitted within four months of that same date.
Lucía Palomino, Attorney in the Trademark Practice Group at ELZABURU
Image:Rosalía's website