I don't think they tripped over the complexity here, they tripped over their hubris. They thought their client's fame was enough to make a case, and didn't put

I don't think they tripped over the complexity here, they tripped over their hubris. They thought their client's fame was enough to make a case, and didn't put in the leg work to defend it. As I've said a couple of times now it's the law (for every EUTM holder) that you have to absolutely defend your eligibility. As it should be. TMs are a restriction on other people's freedoms. Should also point out that this was a contestable decision. They (or, more likely, their successors) can probably prove everything that needs to be proven And using better sources than Wikipedia. They'll earn back their mark registration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r... There certainly are laws that are protectionist, and have been written with American companies in mind, not because those companies are American, but because those companies are exploiting EU citizens in [what they feel to be] unfair ways. Monopolies, data sharing, etc. The fines and lawsuits that come off the back of these aren't on-the-spot instances either. The laws are written in an open process. They're debated for years. These companies get warnings. And GDPR lawsuits affect organisations on both sides of the pond.