EUIPO Rejects Imiracle’s Opposition to ‘Crystal’ Trademark, Citing Lack of Proof of Actual Use in Slovakia

Quick Takeaways

• The EUIPO ruled that Imiracle failed to prove actual commercial use of “Elfbar Crystal” in Slovakia.
• The sales records submitted by Imiracle were deemed to show only short-term and limited supplies to distributors, lacking evidentiary value.
• Product packaging appeared in Ukrainian, which the EUIPO viewed as a sign the goods were not circulated in the Slovak market.
• SKE’s application for the “Crystal” trademark, covering tobacco products and e-cigarettes, was allowed to proceed after all objections were rejected.

2Firsts, December 10, 2025 — According to Law360, Elfbar disposable vape makers Imiracle (HK) Limited and Imiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co. Ltd. have lost their challenge in the “Crystal” trademark dispute in Slovakia, failing to block Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. from registering the mark. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ruled that Imiracle did not demonstrate actual use of the “Elfbar Crystal” brand in Slovakia.

The EUIPO’s Opposition Division noted that Imiracle had opposed SKE’s 2023 application for the “Crystal” trademark—covering tobacco products and electronic cigarettes—initially arguing prior rights based on the unregistered sign “Elfbar Crystal” said to be used across Europe. In July 2024, the company narrowed the opposition to focus solely on Slovakia.

Imiracle submitted what it described as purported sales records, including claims that 12,385 units of the “Elfbar Crystal 2500” were sold in Slovakia in 2021 and that four invoices were issued to local distributors. However, the EUIPO found that the evidence showed only short-term supply to two Slovak distributors and was insufficient to demonstrate sustained or significant commercial use.

The agency also noted that the product packaging was written in Ukrainian (Cyrillic script), raising doubts as to whether the goods were actually placed on the Slovak market.

In its decision, the EUIPO stated that the packaging language indicated the products “were not distributed in the relevant territory.”

The office ultimately concluded that Imiracle had not proven commercial use or consumer recognition of its mark in Slovakia beyond a “local significance,” and therefore rejected the opposition in full.

Cover image: Law360