In the sphere of international trademark law and business strategy, the concept of a revocation action based on non-use represents a critical mechanism for maintaining the integrity and accuracy of trademark registers. This action, often initiated by a third party, serves to clear the register of trademarks that are no longer actively utilized in commerce, thereby preventing the monopolization of marks and facilitating a competitive marketplace. Understanding the evidentiary thresholds and strategic imperatives for such proceedings is paramount for both brand owners and challenging entities.
Legal Foundation and Rationale for Non-Use Revocation
This article is also featured on the infobrokerworld.com podcast
Trademark protection is intrinsically linked to the actual use of the mark in commerce to identify goods and services. This principle, often termed «compulsory use,» dictates that a registered trademark must be genuinely used in connection with all specified goods and services to sustain its legal validity and prevent its cancellation. Should a trademark not be put to genuine use for a continuous period—typically five years—it becomes vulnerable to a revocation action. This period generally commences after the trademark’s registration or, in some jurisdictions, after the conclusion of the opposition period. The underlying rationale is to prevent the «warehousing» of brands, ensuring that protected marks actively serve their commercial function.
Initiation of a Revocation Action
Any natural or legal person, or a representative body, holding a legitimate interest in the matter, may file an application for revocation. This typically requires a written application submitted to the relevant intellectual property office, such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for European Union trademarks or the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) for German trademarks. The application must clearly articulate the grounds for revocation, supported by relevant facts and evidence. Applicable fees are also a prerequisite for the initiation of these proceedings.
Evidentiary Requirements for Revocation Based on Non-Use
The success of a revocation action hinges on compelling evidentiary submissions by both the challenging party (petitioner) and the trademark owner.
Evidence Required from the Petitioner (Challenging Party)
Initially, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of non-use or abandonment. While direct proof of non-use can be challenging to obtain, petitioners typically present evidence demonstrating the absence of genuine commercial activity associated with the trademark for the specified period. This may include:
- Absence of Sales and Marketing: Evidence indicating a lack of sales records, advertising campaigns, or promotional activities directly related to the trademark and its designated goods or services.
- Lack of Market Presence: Documentation or observations suggesting that the trademark lacks visibility in relevant commercial contexts. This might involve market analyses, online presence checks, and the general absence of the mark in channels where it would typically be found.
- Public Perception: In cases where the trademark has become a generic term for the goods or services it covers due to the owner’s actions or inaction, evidence such as market surveys demonstrating this genericization can be presented.
The objective is to show that the trademark owner has ceased using the mark with a clear intention of not resuming usage, or has simply not actively used it for the statutory period.
Evidence Required from the Trademark Owner (Defendant)
Upon a credible allegation of non-use, the burden of proof shifts to the trademark owner to demonstrate genuine use of the mark. The owner must provide concrete evidence of actual, continuous commercial use of the trademark for the goods and services for which it is registered. Key evidentiary submissions include:
- Specimens of Use: This is a crucial element, requiring the submission of real-world examples (specimens) demonstrating the mark’s use in commerce for each class of goods or services. Acceptable specimens can include:
- Website screenshots featuring the trademark in connection with the goods/services.
- Images of products clearly displaying the trademark.
- Marketing materials, brochures, or advertisements showing the mark in use.
- Invoices, sales figures, and other business records that directly link the trademark to commercial transactions.
- Declarations of Use: In some systems, such as the USPTO, trademark owners are required to file sworn statements (e.g., Section 8 declarations) at regular intervals confirming the continued use of the mark. These declarations affirm continuous and proper use of the mark over the years.
- Excusable Non-Use Justification: In limited, well-defined circumstances, non-use may be temporarily excused. The owner must provide detailed reasons for the non-use, demonstrating that it resulted from special circumstances beyond their control and that there was no intent to abandon the mark. Examples include natural disasters, political unrest, or widespread illness. The owner should also detail efforts made to resume use.
- Records of Intent-to-Use (if applicable): If the trademark was registered on an «intent-to-use» basis, and the non-use challenge is made before actual use, the owner might need to demonstrate a bona fide intent to use the mark. However, failing to prove this intent might only lead to the elimination of protection for specific goods/services, not the entire registration.
It is imperative that all submitted information is accurate and current; the submission of improper or fake specimens can have severe long-term consequences, potentially leading to the cancellation of the registration.
Procedural Aspects and Strategic Considerations
Revocation proceedings can be complex, often involving an adversarial phase where both parties submit arguments and evidence. While many intellectual property offices, such as the DPMA and EUIPO, can fully conduct these proceedings administratively, offering a more cost-effective and potentially faster alternative to court litigation, an appeal process typically remains available through higher courts.
Brand owners facing non-use allegations may strategically opt for a partial cancellation of their trademark registration, reducing the scope of goods and services to only those for which genuine use can be demonstrated. This proactive measure can safeguard the remaining parts of the registration that are in active use.
Given the intricate legal requirements and high evidentiary standards, engaging an experienced trademark attorney is highly recommended to assess the merits of a case, gather robust evidence, formulate a coherent strategy, and navigate the procedural complexities effectively. Legal counsel can provide invaluable guidance, ensuring compliance with formal requirements and maximizing the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
In conclusion, the successful navigation of a trademark revocation action based on non-use necessitates a meticulous approach to evidence collection and presentation, grounded in a clear understanding of trademark law and its enforcement mechanisms.
Protect Your Brand – The Trademark Monitoring Series
Trademark Watch Service
Avoid unpleasant surprises in trademark law. Our global watch services track new applications that could conflict with your registered brand. With transparent pricing and a reliable alert system, we help clients worldwide secure their trademark assets. Learn more about >>
