Revocation of a trade mark for non-use is not a theoretical risk — it is a functioning legal mechanism that operates the same way for a startup with a single product and for a billion-dollar film studio. A trade mark certificate guarantees nothing by itself: if a mark sits unused for five years, it becomes vulnerable to cancellation, regardless of how prominent the name on the registration happens to be.
The Kleindienst Case: When a Legend Comes Under Fire
In February 2025, Josef Kleindienst — a Dubai-based property developer of Austrian origin — filed applications for revocation of a number of James Bond franchise trade marks in the United Kingdom and the EU. The argument was straightforward: the proprietors — Danjaq, together with Eon Productions — had not put the signs "James Bond Special Agent 007", "Bond, James Bond", and several related variants to genuine commercial use for at least five years in respect of certain of the goods and services claimed.
Kleindienst targeted his attack selectively — at categories such as vehicle models, electronic publications, and computer programs. This is a typical weak point in large portfolios: classes registered "just in case" at the time of the original filing that have remained without a single real product on a shelf for years.
Danjaq responded in force: lawyers from Boehmert & Boehmert filed 227 pages of evidence of commercial use — from licensed collaborations with well-known brands to a partnership with the tailor that dressed Sean Connery in Dr. No and continues the relationship to this day. This vividly illustrates how much resource goes into defending a mark after the fact — far more than systematic archiving of use evidence from the outset would ever have cost.
See also: for guidance on how not to lose your priority date when choosing a filing strategy, see our article on trade mark priority;the logic of distributing goods and services across classes is covered in our article on the Nice Classification.
The Five-Year Rule: The EU and Ukraine Moving in the Same Direction
The EU Trade Mark Regulation expressly provides that a mark may be revoked if the proprietor has not put it to genuine use in the EU for a continuous period of five years without proper reasons for non-use(Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, Article 58, EUR-Lex).EUIPO elaborates on what constitutes genuine use in itsGuidelines on Trade Mark Practice.).
Ukrainian law is aligned with this approach through the Association Agreement. A significant reference point is the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 5 March 2025 in case No. 910/8781/23, brought by Eurocash S.A. The court settled a long-running dispute on a key point: the five-year non-use period begins to run from the date of publication of the trade mark certificate and is not interrupted by a change of proprietor— even where the new proprietor has been issued a separate new certificate.
In practice, this is where clients most often come unstuck. When acquiring a brand, they assume the clock resets. It does not. The legal history of the mark transfers along with the right itself.
The SpaceX case against Ukrainian company Starlink illustrates how courts assess use class by class rather than "in general". The claim sought early termination of certificate No. 135574 in respect of Nice classes 37, 38, and 42. The court of first instance dismissed SpaceX's claim, finding the mark had been used. The case went through several rounds of review, however, and in the most recent decision the court ultimately cancelled protection in class 38 (telecommunications services) and part of class 42 — precisely where the respondent could not demonstrate genuine activity. The registration in the remaining classes survived. Revocation is rarely all-or-nothing: it proceeds class by class.
What Courts Accept as Evidence — and What They Do Not
Formally affixing a sign to packaging "just in case" does not constitute evidence. What is required is genuine commercial exploitation on the market specifically in respect of the goods or services for which the mark is registered. The types of evidence most commonly accepted include:
- invoices and supply contracts covering the relevant period;
- advertising materials with a publication date that anchors them to the period under review;
- licence agreements with third parties who themselves use the mark under the proprietor's control.
In our experience, the weak point is almost always the date. A contract without a clearly defined period of validity, or an advertising banner without publication metadata, will readily be dismissed by a court — even where the fact of sale is not in doubt.
What Brand Owners Should Do
Obtaining a certificate is the starting point, not the finish line. Three things are worth addressing immediately after registration.
First, document a use plan for each registered class separately — not for the mark as a whole. Second, maintain a dedicated evidence folder with dates — invoices, screenshots of advertising, licences — and update it quarterly rather than scrambling to compile it a month before a claim arrives. Third, conduct an annual portfolio audit and honestly abandon classes that are genuinely not being used. An empty class is not a reserve of strength — it is a target for competitors and trade mark watching services.
This is why regular monitoring of third-party filings in adjacent classes is just as important a habit as protecting your own rights. For guidance on setting up that kind of monitoring, see our article on EU trade mark watch services..
The Bond case is valuable precisely because it demonstrates that brand scale and legal budget do not exempt anyone from basic evidentiary discipline. Danjaq had to compile 227 pages under deadline pressure — having those documents ready in advance would have cost a fraction of the effort.
