The EGC confirms: “V12X” is not registrable as a trademark – what companies should take away from this.

Trade mark law protects indications of origin – but not descriptive indications that competitors need to designate their products. This was precisely the subject of a recent ruling by the General Court of the European Union (judgment of March 18, 2026, ref. T-108/25).

MAN Truck & Bus SE had registered the EU word mark V12X for “engines for boats, ships and stationary applications as well as their parts and spare parts”. Rolls-Royce Power Systems applied to the EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity of the mark. After an initially unsuccessful application before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled in favor of Rolls-Royce and declared the trademark invalid. MAN brought an action against this before the European Court of Justice – without success.

Why was “V12X” problematic?

The central question was whether V12X is descriptive of the registered goods. According to Art. 7 (1) lit. c of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, signs which may serve, in trade, to describe the kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics of the goods are excluded from registration. Such terms should remain freely available to all market participants.

The EGC confirmed the assessment of the EUIPO: The relevant public – in particular the professional circles in the field of boat, ship and industrial engines – understand “V12” as a reference to an engine with twelve cylinders in a V arrangement. In the engine sector, this is a technical description and not an indication of origin.

The addition of “X” did not save the trademark either. The court found that “X” could be understood as a reference to special performance features in the specific context. MAN’s own use also played a role here: on the website, the “X” was explained as “neXt”, “eXtra displacement” and “eXcellent power-to-weight ratio”, among other things.

Thus, in the court’s view, there was a sufficiently direct link between the sign V12X and the characteristics of the protected goods.

Combinations of letters and numbers can also be descriptive

The decision is particularly interesting because it shows that it is not enough to make a technical indication appear “brand-like” by adding an additional letter or an alphanumeric combination.

The General Court examined not only the individual elements V12 and X, but also the mark as a whole. The decisive factor was that the combination did not create a new, independent meaning from the point of view of the relevant public. As a result, V12X remained a mere stringing together of descriptive elements.

Type designations, model numbers and performance specifications are particularly common in the technical field. If a sign looks like a product description according to these market practices, the path to trademark protection is difficult.

Evidence: screenshots may be sufficient

Another point of practical relevance concerns the presentation of evidence in EUIPO proceedings. MAN had complained that the EUIPO had relied on screenshots and internet sources. Some links were no longer available and some screenshots were not sufficiently reliable.

The EGC did not agree. It clarified that screenshots and website excerpts can, in principle, be suitable evidence. The mere theoretical possibility that internet content could be altered is not sufficient to undermine their probative value. Anyone challenging the credibility of such evidence must present concrete evidence of manipulation or contradictions.

In practice, this means that online evidence remains important in trade mark proceedings. At the same time, they should be properly documented – with date, source, URL and as complete a context as possible.

New evidence in the appeal instance

The EUIPO was also allowed to take into account the evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal.

The EGC confirmed that evidence submitted late can be admissible if it is prima facie relevant and merely supplements evidence already submitted on time. This was precisely the case here: Rolls-Royce had already submitted evidence on the descriptive character before the Cancellation Division and supplemented it in the appeal instance in order to respond to criticism from the first instance.

The decision thus shows once again that the EUIPO procedure is not a purely schematic time limit regime. New evidence can be taken into account – especially if it expands on the previous submission and is relevant to the decision.

No protection via property rights

MAN also invoked the right of ownership. A registered trademark is the property of the trademark owner and its deletion interferes with this legal position.

This argument did not convince the EGC either. It is true that intellectual property is protected. However, protection only exists within the limits of trademark law. If a trademark was registered contrary to absolute grounds for refusal, it must be declared invalid upon application. This is not an impermissible expropriation, but the legal consequence of an incorrect registration.

What companies can learn from this

The ruling is a clear indication for companies in the technical field: Anyone who wants to develop product names and protect them as a trademark should use descriptive technical abbreviations with caution.

Particularly risky are signs that

• describe technical designs,
• performance features,
• are similar to industry-standard type designations,
• or used for explanatory purposes in your own advertising.

The last point in particular is often underestimated. If a company itself explains that a sign element stands for “extra”, “next”, “excellent”, “high performance” or similar quality features, this communication can later speak against the protectability of the trademark.

Practical tip: Check brand strategy before product launch

Before registering a technical product trademark, it should be checked whether the desired name can really act as an indication of origin. Imaginative designations, unusual neologisms or clearly distinctive trademark architectures are generally safer than descriptive combinations of numbers, letters and technical abbreviations.

This is particularly true for EU trademarks: an absolute ground for refusal in only one part of the EU may be sufficient to prevent protection or to invalidate it later.

You can find out how to avoid typical pitfalls when applying for a trademark in our podcast episode Common pitfalls in trademark law.

What does the ruling mean for the future?

With its decision on V12X, the EGC confirms that trademark law does not monopolize technical descriptions. Even a registered trademark is not unassailable if it essentially only describes characteristics of the product.

For companies, this means that a brand must do more than just technically classify a product. It must be distinctive and be understood as an indication of the company’s origin. If you think about this at the naming stage, you can avoid subsequent cancellation proceedings and protect your brand more sustainably.

Frequently asked questions about the registrability of technical brand names