Revocation for non-use: an important ruling by the EU Court of Justice for all owners of ‘broadly worded’ trademarks!

⚖️ EU Court of Justice, 19 March 2025, case T-1075/23

The ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which overturns a decision by the EUIPO Board of Appeal, is in line with essential case law on revocation for lack of genuine use. It confirms the need to accurately assess the scope of protection of a trademark when its wording covers a particularly broad category of goods or services. 💡

The principle: limited genuine use cannot justify maintaining broad protection

Since the Aladin (T-126/03) and Respicur (T-256/04) judgments, it has been established that when a trademark is registered for a general term such as ‘clothing’ or ‘telecommunications services’ but the evidence of use only concerns a limited part of that category, the proprietor's rights can only be preserved for coherent autonomous sub-categories.

The Court of Justice reaffirmed this principle in the ACTC judgment (CJEU, 16 July 2020, No. C-714/18), recalling that registration for a broad term cannot allow its proprietor to retain excessive protection in relation to limited use.

🔍 In this case, the contested trademark was registered for the general category of ‘telecommunications services’. However, the evidence of use produced only concerned certain specific types of services.

The Board of Appeal had nevertheless considered that this diversity was sufficient to demonstrate use covering the entire category.

⚖️ The Court criticised the Board of Appeal for failing to carry out the necessary analysis:

✔ determining whether the services actually used fell within one or more autonomous sub-categories, defined according to their purpose or destination; ✔ taking into account the rapid evolution of the telecommunications sector, which makes this segmentation even more necessary.

In other words, the diversity of the services used is not in itself sufficient to cover a broad category if that category is objectively divisible.

👉 The Court points out that the key to the analysis lies in the purpose and intended use of the goods or services actually used.

This ruling reinforces the need for vigilance when drafting wording and compiling evidence of use, particularly in sectors where products or services are numerous and evolving. For owners of trademarks registered with broad wording, it serves as a strategic reminder: anticipating segmentation is essential to securing protection.

📞 Our firm assists companies and creators in filing, managing and defending their trademarks in France (INPI), Germany (DPMA) and at the European level (EUIPO). If you wish to secure your brand strategy and avoid the pitfalls associated with use, please do not hesitate to contact us: we will guide you through every step of the process, from choosing the wording to compiling evidence of use.

Image : Chatgpt