General

Trus v EUIPO - Unilab (ARTRESAN) (EU trade mark - Judgment)

[2023] EUECJ T58522Court of Justice of the European Union (including the General Court)2023

“(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark ARTRESAN – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2…”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Trus v EUIPO - Unilab (ARTRESAN) (EU trade mark - Judgment). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More General cases

XX v GH

[2026] EWFC OJ 51

UI2024005379 & UI2024005667

[2026] UKAITUR UI2024005379

Ohene (2) Ocarina (3) Omeri v (1) Ornet (2) Orrick

[2026] DIFC DCFI_111

Mr W Clancy v Tuffnells Ltd (England and Wales : Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKET 6027608_2025

Ms L Grubb v South Central Youth Ltd (England and Wales : Redundancy)

[2026] UKET 2307048_2025

Commission v Hungary (Droit de fournir des services de medias dans une radiofrequence) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Radio spectrum - Judgment)

[2026] EUECJ C9223

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.