MOONSTAR | Decision 0013692


Kabushiki Kaisha Moonstar (also trading as Moonstar Company), 60 Shirayama-Machi, Kurume-Shi, Fukuoka-Ken, Japan, (applicant), represented by Novagraaf UK, 2nd Floor,  Renown House, 33-34 Bury Street, London EC3A 5AR, United Kingdom (professional representative)

a g a i n s t

Dai Jianyuan, Room 1501, No. 3, Lane 768, Dingxi Road, Changning District, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China (EUTM proprietor), represented by Cabinet Vittoz, 26, rue du Quatre-Septembre, 75002 Paris, France (professional representative).

On 21/06/2017 the Cancellation Division takes the following


1.        The application for revocation is upheld.

2.        The EUTM proprietor’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 2 009 967 are revoked in their entirety as from 12/09/2016.

3.        The EUTM proprietor bears the costs, fixed at EUR 1 080.


The applicant filed a request for revocation of European Union trade mark No 2 009 967 ‘MOONSTAR’ (word mark) (the EUTM). The request is directed against all the goods covered by the EUTM, namely:

Class 11:        Lamps, safety lamps, electric torches, oil lamps, gas lamp lanterns, signal lamps, light bulbs, electric lamps, projector lamps, miner's lamps, petrol burners, laboratory lamps, stage lights, bicycle lights, search lights, kitchen ranges for domestic use, electric ovens for domestic use, barbecues, electric coffee percolators, autoclaves, electric coffee machines, electric pressure cooking saucepans, electric deep fryers, electric food dryers, coffee roasters, electric coffee filters, bread toasters, electric rotisseries, roasting spits, gas burners, baker's ovens for commercial use, electric cooking stoves, electric pressure cookers, electric rice cookers; household electric heating radiators, steam boilers for domestic use, electric central heating radiators, water closets; electric heating radiators, showers, central heating radiators, mineralizing and filtering units for drinking water for human use, electric water heaters for baths, table fans, floor fans, wall-mounted fans, kitchen ventilating fans, ventilating fans for commercial and industrial use, ceiling fans, window-type air conditioners, wall-mounted split air conditioners, central air conditioners for office buildings and hotels, heaters for baths for domestic use, ventilators, ventilators for vehicles, ventilation hoods for laboratories, heating dampers, ventilation hoods, electric hair dryers for domestic use, electric clothes drying machines for household use, kilns, purifying systems for domestic use, tobacco roasters, chimney blowers, heaters for vehicles, air conditioners for vehicles, air re-heaters for domestic and commercial use, filters for air conditioners, humidifiers for central heating for steam radiators, heaters for heating irons, filters for drinking water; refrigerators, refrigerators for vehicles, refrigerating cabinets, refrigerating containers, freezers, refrigerating chambers, ice machines, ice boxes; toilet bowls, flushing tanks, flushing units for toilets, water tubes and taps, hand drying units for washrooms, lavatory basins, toilet seats, bathtubs and seat baths for bath tubs.

Class 24:        Bed sheets, table cloths not of paper, canvas, adhesive-bonded fabrics, towels, corduroy, silk cloth and tough silk cloth, wall-mounted textile tapestry, bed blankets, pillow cases, eider down quilts and nylon, fabrics and blankets for travel.

Class 25:        Clothing made of silk, cotton, linen, woolen fabrics and leather, namely, scarves, shirts, ties, underwear, jackets, trousers, coats, sweaters, boots, shoes, slippers, complete set of clothes for babies, raincoats, water-proof clothes, football boots, climbing boots, leather waist belts, sports wear, children's clothing, caps and hats (worn on head); down coats and T-shirts.

The applicant invoked Article 51(1)(a) EUTMR.


According to Article 51(1)(a) EUTMR, the rights of the proprietor of the European Union trade mark will be revoked on application to the Office, if, within a continuous period of five years, the trade mark has not been put to genuine use in the Union for the goods or services for which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use.

In revocation proceedings based on the grounds of non-use, the burden of proof lies with the EUTM proprietor as the applicant cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, namely that the mark has not been used during a continuous period of five years. Therefore, it is the EUTM proprietor who must prove genuine use within the European Union or submit proper reasons for non-use.

In the present case the EUTM was registered on 21/05/2002. The revocation request was filed on 12/09/2016. Therefore, the EUTM had been registered for more than five years at the date of the filing of the request.

On 06/10/2016, the Cancellation Division duly notified the EUTM proprietor of the application for revocation and gave it a time limit of three months to submit evidence of use of the EUTM for all the goods for which it is registered.

The EUTM proprietor did not submit any observations or evidence of use in reply to the application for revocation within the time limit.

According to Rule 40(5) EUTMIR, if the proprietor of the European Union trade mark does not provide proof of genuine use of the contested mark within the time limit set by the Office, the European Union trade mark will be revoked.

In the absence of any reply from the EUTM proprietor, there is neither any evidence that the EUTM has been genuinely used in the European Union for any of the goods for which it is registered nor any indications of proper reasons for non-use.

Pursuant to Article 55(1) EUTMR, the EUTM must be deemed not to have had, as from the date of the application for revocation, the effects specified in the EUTMR, to the extent that the proprietor’s rights have been revoked. An earlier date, on which one of the grounds for revocation occurred, may be fixed at the request of one of the parties. In the present case, the applicant has requested an earlier date. However, in exercising its discretion in this regard, the Cancellation Division considers that it is not expedient in this case to grant this request, since the applicant has not proven sufficient legal interest in support of its request.

Consequently, the EUTM proprietor’s rights must be revoked in their entirety and deemed not to have had any effects as from 12/09/2016.


According to Article 85(1) EUTMR, the losing party in cancellation proceedings must bear the fees and costs incurred by the other party.

Since the EUTM proprietor is the losing party, it must bear the cancellation fee as well as the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of these proceedings.

According to Rule 94(3) and (6) EUTMIR and Rule 94(7)(d)(iii) EUTMIR, the costs to be paid to the applicant are the cancellation fee and the costs of representation, which are to be fixed on the basis of the maximum rate set therein.

The Cancellation Division




According to Article 59 EUTMR, any party adversely affected by this decision has a right to appeal against this decision. According to Article 60 EUTMR, notice of appeal must be filed in writing at the Office within two months of the date of notification of this decision. It must be filed in the language of the proceedings in which the decision subject to appeal was taken. Furthermore, a written statement of the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of the same date. The notice of appeal will be deemed to be filed only when the appeal fee of EUR 720 has been paid.

The amount determined in the fixation of the costs may only be reviewed by a decision of the Cancellation Division on request. According to Rule 94(4) EUTMIR, such a request must be filed within one month of the date of notification of this fixation of costs and will be deemed to be filed only when the review fee of EUR 100 has been paid (Annex 1 A(33) EUTMR).

Start your Trademark Study today!

This report is optional but highly recommended.
Before filing your trademark, it is important that you evaluate possible obstacles that may arise during the registration process. Our Trademark Comprehensive Study will not only list similar trademarks {graphic/phonetic} that may conflict with yours, but also give you an Attorney's opinion about registration possibilities.