kryzhov / Shutterstock.com
Given that an EU trademark proprietor’s rights extend throughout the whole of the EU, are its obligations to prove genuine use of the mark equally far-reaching? Mary Bagnall of Charles Russell Speechlys investigates.
It has long been a feature of EU trademark law that a registered trademark which is unused by the owner or with its consent for a continuous period of five years may be revoked and removed from the register. The reason behind the provisions is to prevent the trademark registers from becoming crowded with marks that are not in use, making those marks available to others.
In addition, registered trademarks which have been unused for a period of five years may not be relied on to oppose the application for the same or a similar trademark by a third party. A proprietor who wishes to rely on a mark which has been registered for more than five years may be asked to prove that the mark has been put to genuine use in the previous five years. If evidence of genuine use is not provided, the opposition will fail.
These principles are incorporated into articles 42(2) and 51 of the amended Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (EU trademarks regulation), which came into effect on March 23, 2016, and articles 16 and 19 of EU Directive 2015/2436, which harmonises national trademark law for all EU member states and must be implemented (subject to a few exceptions) by January 14, 2019.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
Mary Bagnall, Charles Russell Speechlys, EU, trademarks, Jumpman, AP, Daniel Alexander QC, Justice Arnold, CJEU, brand,