Trademark Revocation: Insights from the 2025 EU General Court Decisions
The EU General Court tightens its stance on trademark non-use. Discover the legal implications and best practices for trademark holders.
Introduction: A European Legal Framework That Increases Accountability for Trademark Holders
Registering a trademark is only the beginning. To maintain exclusive rights, trademark holders must ensure continuous and genuine use of their marks. Two recent decisions from the General Court of the European Union (GCEU), delivered on May 7, 2025 (cases T-1088/23 and T-1089/23), emphasize this requirement.
These rulings provide significant clarification on non-use revocation proceedings, the limits of procedural abuse claims, and the EUIPO’s obligation to evaluate submitted evidence properly. They reinforce legal certainty and serve as a clear reminder that trademark portfolio management is a strategic imperative—not just an administrative duty.
What Is Trademark Revocation for Non-Use?
Under Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, a European Union trademark may be revoked if it has not been put to genuine use for a continuous period of five years. This provision ensures that registered trademarks reflect actual commercial use, preventing the register from being cluttered with unused marks.
Unlike other legal actions, no legitimate interest is required to initiate a revocation request. Article 63(1)(a) confirms that any third party may file for revocation, even without a direct legal interest. The rationale is to maintain a register that mirrors the economic reality.
Trademark revocation for non-use is a constant risk for trademark holders who fail to use their marks in commerce. Once the five-year threshold is crossed, the risk becomes imminent.
Procedural Abuse: A Hard Argument to Make
In cases T-1088/23 and T-1089/23, RTL Group SA attempted to block a revocation request by alleging abuse of procedure. The company argued that the request was malicious and constituted a misuse of legal rights.
The General Court of the EU firmly rejected this argument. It reaffirmed that abuse of rights is a narrowly defined concept, recognized only in exceptional circumstances. Claimants must provide detailed evidence of a systematic, fraudulent, and repeated pattern of legal filings.
In a past case (the Sandra Pabst case, EUIPO, 2020), procedural abuse was acknowledged after a company filed over 800 revocation actions within two years, using a shell company. That was deemed an extreme situation justifying an exception.
In contrast, the current cases involved a single action targeting a dormant trademark, which is not sufficient to demonstrate procedural abuse.
The EUIPO’s Evaluation of Evidence: A Reinforced Duty to Justify
Another key takeaway from these rulings relates to how EUIPO handles late-submitted evidence in revocation cases.
RTL submitted documents demonstrating trademark use, but these were filed after the initial deadline. The EUIPO automatically dismissed them without providing specific reasoning.
The Court emphasized that while the EUIPO has broad discretion under Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, this discretion must be exercised objectively and with proper justification.
By censuring the EUIPO, the General Court clearly stated that case assessments must be rigorous, fair, and mindful of the parties’ right to defense, even when dealing with belated evidence.
Best Practices to Avoid Trademark Revocation
In light of these decisions, businesses should tighten their strategic and documentary management of trademarks. Here are essential best practices:
✅ Ensure continuous and genuine use of your trademarks: advertising, packaging, invoices, brochures, social media—all of these are valid usage indicators.
✅ Keep dated records of trademark use: screenshots, publications, commercial documents, license agreements.
✅ Organize your evidence in five-year cycles to anticipate potential revocation actions.
✅ Monitor your trademark portfolio and pay attention to renewal deadlines.
✅ Respond swiftly to revocation requests or oppositions: timely action may determine whether your evidence is accepted.
Conclusion: A New Era of Discipline and Responsibility
The May 7, 2025 rulings confirm a broader trend: European trademark enforcement is becoming stricter. The legislative intent is clear—clear the trademark register of unused or inactive marks.
Businesses can no longer rely solely on formal registration. They must demonstrate genuine and continuous use or risk losing their rights.
