Ferrari SpA owned the international trademark  TESTAROSSA in the European Union for class 12 in relation to vehicles and their accessories. However, the trademark was revoked in its entirety due to lack of use. In response to this decision, Ferrari SpA filed an appeal with the General Court of the EU, requesting the annulment of the contested decision on the grounds that the effective use of the trademark had not been properly assessed.

The contested decision stated that Ferrari SpA had not produced nor distributed new cars bearing the disputed trademark, arguing that only second hand cars designated with the TESTAROSSA trademark were commercialized by third parties. Therefore, the Board of Appeal revoked the mentioned trademark, as it was not demonstrated that the sales made by third parties were carried out with the consent of the trademark owner. Furthermore, the certification service offered by the trademark owner was considered insufficient to prove a genuine use, because the Office understood that this service was provided under the FERRARI trademark, and not under the contested trademark.

The applicant argued that the sale of second-hand cars bearing the  TESTAROSSA mark were made by authorised dealers, in respect of which it produces supporting invoices that demonstrate that the use of the TESTAROSSA mark by third parties was consensual. In this regard, it also maintains that the certification service provided to those authorised dealers generates an income strictly related to the sale of second hand cars. The certificates issued by the trademark proprietor (in exchange for remuneration) increase the value of TESTAROSSA vehicles and facilitate their resale.

The General Court assessed that the trademark was being used by authorised dealers with whom the trademark owner had economic and contractual links, thus constituting proof of genuine use. The General Court also ruled that the certification service was capable of constituting a genuine use of the trademark, as it directly interferes with sales of second-hand vehicles bearing the conflicted trademark. Moreover, on the invoices provided by the trademark owner the FERRARI and TESTAROSSA trademarks appear simultaneously. This combination is a common practice in the motor vehicle market, as one of the trademarks designates the manufacturer, in this case FERRARI, and a second trade mark designates the model, in this case TESTAROSSA, therefore both trade marks are intrinsically linked.

Ultimately, the General Court annulled the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal because it was proven that Ferrari SpA participates in the sale of second-hand vehicles bearing the TESTAROSSA mark by offering its consent to authorised dealers and distributors. Therefore it obtains an economic benefit from the revenue it generates through the certification service. The Board of Appeal was therefore wrong to dismiss as irrelevant the evidence relating to the certification of second-hand cars bearing the TESTAROSSA mark, as the FERRARI mark and the TESTAROSSA mark are being used simultaneously on the invoices regarding the certification service. For all of the above, the genuine use of the TESTAROSSA mark is assessed.

Judgement of the General Court from 2 July 2025 in the case T‑1103/23.