In this judgment the CJEU confirms this strong trend: the lack of precision of the wording (designation of goods and services) of the mark, which can go so far as to use the wording of a class, does not really have an impact on the validity of the mark. On the other hand, this defect will be exploitable during an action for revocation of the trademark for failure to operate for five years.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=7B34D7D85169E624DA19D7D07D34A8BE?text=&docid=222824&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8150221
A trademark owner can oppose the registration of a new trademark that he considers too close to his trademark. The applicant can then demand that this holder provide proof of genuine use of his earlier mark (art.47 EU Regulation 2017/1001). This proof is more or less heavy depending on the degree of homogeneity of the category of goods or services considered.
T-126/03 – Reckitt Benckiser (España) v OHIM – Aladdin (ALADIN)
https://www.village-justice.com/articles/usage-serieux-une-marque-sur-quelle-partie-des-produits-services-doit-porter,33371.html
English 
French 
German 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Italian