Non-Use revocation: EU General Court clarifies procedural abuse and admissibility of late evidence

In the current competitive environment, businesses must continuously safeguard the longevity of their trademark rights. As a result, non-use revocation proceedings have become increasingly prevalent before the European Union courts.

Two judgments delivered on 7 May 2025 by the General Court of the European Union (T-1088/23 and T-1089/23) provide critical clarification on two pivotal issues: the absence of a standing requirement for filing revocation actions, and the procedural rules surrounding the admissibility of late evidence. These rulings highlight the increased standards imposed on trademark owners and the procedural diligence expected from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). We analyse here the key principles these decisions establish regarding evidentiary standards, procedural fairness, and the balance of rights before the EUIPO.

Legal and procedural framework for revocation actions

Pursuant to Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, any third party may seek the revocation of an EU trademark if it has not been used in a genuine manner for a continuous period of five years. These proceedings aim to ensure the accuracy of the trademark register and maintain the economic effectiveness of trademark rights. However, where such actions are initiated for strategic or retaliatory reasons particularly in the absence of a legitimate interest, they may raise concerns of procedural abuse.

In the judgments of 7 May 2025 (T-1088/23 and T-1089/23), the General Court was called upon to adjudicate on appeals filed by RTL Group Markenverwaltungs GmbH, challenging EUIPO decisions that had partially revoked its trademarks following applications by a third party. Two central legal questions arose: whether the applications were inadmissible due to abuse of rights, and whether the Board of Appeal had erred in refusing to consider late-filed evidence.

Two parallel cases leading to a key clarification

The cases T-1088/23 and T-1089/23 oppose RTL Group Markenverwaltungs GmbH to the EUIPO and concern the partial revocation of two figurative “RTL” European Union trademarks registered for more than twenty classes of goods and services.

In 2016, RTL Group Markenverwaltungs GmbH obtained registration of two European Union figurative trademarks incorporating the verbal element “RTL”, covering a broad range of goods and services across 22 classes. In 2021, a third party filed two applications for revocation on the grounds of non-use, pursuant to Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trademark.

To contest these applications, RTL submitted various items of evidence intended to demonstrate genuine use of the contested marks, including website screenshots, advertising materials, extracts from broadcast programmes, and audience data. However, the EUIPO found that this evidence was sufficient only in respect of certain goods and services, and ordered the partial revocation of the marks for the remainder.

RTL appealed to the EUIPO Board of Appeal, seeking annulment of the partial revocation decision and requesting that additional evidence be taken into account for the first time on appeal. This additional evidence included financial documents, certificates of digital broadcasting, and further material substantiating commercial communication efforts. The Board of Appeal rejected the newly submitted documents on the grounds that they were filed belatedly and without sufficient justification, and upheld the partial revocation decision.

RTL’s appeals relied on two main grounds: that the revocation actions were inadmissible due to abuse of rights, and that the Board had wrongfully refused to examine late-filed evidence. The General Court ruled on both issues. It rejected the argument of abuse of rights and found fault with the way in which the EUIPO handled the late evidence.

Rejection of an abuse of rights claim: a matter of principle

RTL argued that the revocation request was part of a broader strategy of procedural intimidation. They cited the ‘Sandra Pabst’ decision, which was made by the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO on 1 February 2020 (R 2445/2017-G). In a 2020 decision, the Grand Board of Appeal acknowledged a manifest abuse of process, based on a body of consistent and converging evidence. The applicant a company specifically established for the purpose of filing revocation actions had initiated over 800 such proceedings in less than two years, including 37 targeting the same trademark owner. Several of these actions were clearly unfounded and used strategically as leverage, particularly with the aim of pressuring trademark holders into transferring their rights. This systemic conduct, coupled with the absence of any genuine economic activity and the repetitive nature of the filings, revealed a deliberate and improper use of the revocation procedure for purposes unrelated to those envisaged by the Regulation. RTL relied on this precedent as a benchmark to demonstrate the abusive nature of the revocation actions brought against its marks.However, the General Court confirmed that under Article 63(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, any natural or legal person may initiate a revocation action without having to demonstrate standing or a legitimate interest. The underlying rationale is the protection of public interest in maintaining a truthful and functional trademark register. The objective is, in particular, to unclog the trademark registers by removing signs that are no longer in use, in a context where the availability of distinctive signs is increasingly limited, thereby ensuring better access to the registers for active market participants. The ground for revocation non-use is objective and unrelated to the applicant’s motivations.

The Court further noted that none of the exceptional circumstances present in the Sandra Pabst case were applicable here: there was no shell company, only a limited number of proceedings, and no indication of an unlawful strategic purpose. Accordingly, the abuse of rights claim was dismissed.

Late evidence of use: a reminder of EUIPO’s procedural obligations

The second issue focused on the Board of Appeal’s refusal to consider evidence submitted by RTL on 15 September 2023 after the expiry of the procedural deadlines. Relying on Articles 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and 27(4) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, the EUIPO excluded this evidence without applying any substantive analysis.

The General Court strongly censured this approach. It reiterated that EUIPO enjoys broad discretion to admit late evidence, provided it is prima facie relevant and accompanied by valid justifications for the delay. A general refusal grounded solely on the late submission of evidence, without assessing these two conditions, constitutes a procedural error.

In this case, the EUIPO had failed to properly exercise its discretion in a reasoned manner, thereby breaching its procedural obligations. The Court therefore partially annulled the EUIPO’s decision.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the judgments delivered on 7 May 2025 clarify two fundamental principles of EU trademark law. First, they confirm that revocation actions may be initiated without the need to demonstrate any legitimate interest, even in the absence of a competitive relationship or personal use of the mark by the applicant. They further establish that the EUIPO must provide a detailed and reasoned justification when refusing to consider evidence submitted after the prescribed deadlines.

The Court underscores that revocation proceedings serve a broader public interest: maintaining the integrity and functionality of the trademark register by eliminating marks that are no longer in genuine use. This ensures that space remains available in an increasingly saturated register, where the availability of distinctive signs is a growing concern for economic operators.

These rulings also highlight the imperative for trademark owners to adopt a proactive and disciplined approach to portfolio management. Preserving enforceable rights requires the continuous collection and maintenance of clear, credible, and contemporaneous evidence of use, capable of withstanding scrutiny in the event of a revocation challenge.

The law firm Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés is partnered with a global network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.

FAQ