The General Court Clarifies Trademark Use - Can Undated Evidence Have Probative Value?

Aurilex • 11 November 2024

The General Court clarifies the evidence requirement for trademark use in the EU trademark law in a recent judgement.

The registration of a European trademark grants its holder an exclusive right to commercial exploitation. However, this exclusive right does not mean that the monopoly is guaranteed without condition. The trademark holder must exploit the mark, in order to maintain the trademark right. This is intended to prevent unused trademarks from crowding the trademark register and hindering other users from accessing or registering similar marks. Under the EU trademark law, the trademark holder can begin the use of the trademark as late as five years after the registration date. This is called the “grace period”.


For a trademark holder seeking to protect their trademark in a litigation, collecting evidence on the use of the trademark becomes crucial. Notably, the trademark holder may lose his rights if he fails to prove that the trademark has been used for five consecutive years, upon request by a third party to the Office. How to collect evidences is also an essential question for trademark holders.


In a recent judgment on July 17, 2024[1], the European Court of Justice clarified the evidentiary requirements in trademark law, specifically addressing the genuine use of a European trademark and the probative value of undated evidence.


The case in question involved a dispute between W.B Studio and E.Land Italy Srl over the European BELFE trademark, registered in 1998 and covering clothing and fashion accessories. W.B. Studio sought the revocation of this trademark, arguing that it had not been used for certain product categories. The EUIPO partially upheld the trademark’s validity, while W.B. Studio contended that undated photos were insufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the trademark and questioned the adequacy of other evidence, such as invoices and catalogs, in proving product commercialization.


The Court adopted a comprehensive approach to analyzing evidence of use, ruling that undated evidence could be acceptable if assessed in conjunction with other evidence to form a cumulative body of proof. In this case, the undated photographs of labels were supported by other dated documents, such as invoices containing corresponding product codes.


Another interesting question concerns the place of use. The invoices submitted by the trademark holder indicated that the goods were manufactured in Italy and exported to China. The Court clarified that a trademark holder could prove serious use of their mark even if the products bearing the mark were manufactured, stored, or handled within the EU with the intention of selling them outside the European Union.


This judgment is good news for European trademark holders, especially those who mainly export their products outside the EU. By relaxing the evidentiary requirements, the European Court facilitates trademark holders' ability to defend their rights. It expands the scope for evidence gathering and mitigates the risk of revocation on purely technical grounds.


Christine Chai, Managing Partner

Marco Mouchot Ribas, Trainee Lawyer


  [1] General Court, 17/07/2024, T‑50/23, Belfe

by Aurilex 16 April 2025
On April 16, 2025, Christine Chai, partner at Aurilex, was invited to speak at the seminar “ China–Europe Intellectual Property Protection in Practice: A Dual Perspective on Compliance and Risk Mitigation ,” jointly organized by Aurilex and Shanghai Sunhold Law Firm. The event brought together legal professionals from both Europe and China, offering in-depth analysis and practical guidance for companies navigating intellectual property (IP) protection across borders. As the representative speaker on European IP practice, Christine Chai delivered a detailed presentation covering the legal frameworks, registration strategies, and enforcement challenges businesses typically face when entering the European market. Navigating Dual Systems: EU-Wide vs. National IP Protections Christine highlighted the complexity of Europe’s IP system, which combines EU-wide mechanisms (such as EUTM and EPO filings) with country-specific rules. She emphasized the importance for businesses to align their IP strategies with this dual-layered structure. “For example,” she noted, “the actual use requirement under the EU Trademark Regulation means that companies must plan not only for registration but for active, timely use in the market.” Trade Fair Injunctions: A Real and Growing Risk Christine also warned Chinese companies about the increasing use of emergency injunctions during trade fairs in France and other EU countries. “There have been multiple cases where exhibitors faced injunctions on-site, resulting in booth closures and seizure of displayed goods. Without preemptive IP audits, companies expose themselves to serious operational disruptions,” she explained. The UPC: Centralization Comes with Strategy Shifts Addressing recent developments, Christine discussed the impact of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on enforcement strategy in Europe. While the UPC offers streamlined litigation across multiple EU member states, it also requires companies to make deliberate choices between centralized and national enforcement routes. Joint Dialogue: Cross-Border Action Checklists During the joint dialogue session, Christine collaborated with the Chinese legal team to provide practical compliance checklists for cross-border business activities. She advised Chinese companies to: Conduct prior trademark and patent clearance in target EU countries; Evaluate whether to opt in or out of the UPC system; Prepare legal strategies in case of emergency injunctions or enforcement challenges. Likewise, she shared insights for European companies expanding into China, particularly on navigating local IP enforcement procedures and understanding the nuances of evidence collection in cases involving trade secrets. This seminar highlighted the increasing importance of IP compliance in cross-border business, especially as more Chinese companies “go global” and more European businesses expand into China. Aurilex remains committed to providing in-depth legal support tailored to the needs of international clients operating across jurisdictions.
by Aurilex 31 January 2025
Aurilex Recognized in WTR 1000: Leading Trademark Professional in 2025
by Aurilex 27 November 2024
EU design views must be consistent to be valid. A recent decision of the General Court of the EU confirms this requirement.
by Aurilex 26 July 2024
One hundred years ago, from May 4 to July 27, 1924, the eighth Olympiad of the modern era was held in Paris. Already at that time, the International Olympic Committee paid attention to the protection of the Olympic intellectual properties. Below is the trademark filed in 1924 for the Olympic Games in Paris.
by Aurilex 8 July 2024
The departing question of this legal issue is as follows: does a distillery company, which only fills labeled bottles provides by a third party, infringe the trademark of others, if it turns out that the label provided by the third party is a trademark infringement?
by Aurilex 13 May 2024
Lesson from M&M's: Attention by changing the brand!
designer's right, trademark right, trademark protection, intellecutal property in France
by Aurilex 21 April 2024
After the end of collaboration, can the company still use a designer's name as a trademark ?
artificial intelligence, EU AI Act
by Aurilex 1 April 2024
The New EU AI Act will bring changes for artificial intelligence companies coming into the European Union.
by Aurilex 22 March 2024
The EU has adopted new rules for designs.
More posts