Decision on Cancellation No 14 717 C page: 2 of 3
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 17/12/2008. The revocation request
was submitted on 29/03/2017. Therefore, the EUTM had been registered for more than
five years at the date of the filing of the request.
On 12/04/2017, 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 services 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 Article 19(1) EUTMDR, if the proprietor of the European Union trade mark
does not submit 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 services
for which it is registered nor any indications of proper reasons for non-use.
Pursuant to Article 62(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extent that the proprietor’s rights have been revoked.
Consequently, the EUTM proprietor’s rights must be revoked in their entirety and
deemed not to have had any effects as from 29/03/2017.
According to Article 109(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 Article 109(1) and (7) EUTMR and Article 18(1)(c)(ii) 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. In the present case the
applicant did not appoint a representative within the meaning of Article 120 EUTMR
and, therefore, did not incur representation costs.