20/12/2022, R 2108/2018‑2, Wong lo kat（中文：王老吉）
Bad faith – Repeat filing of identical EUTM – Intention of circumventing the obligation of use – Decision confirmed – EUTM cancelled
恶意行为 - 重复注册相同的欧盟商标 - 旨在规避使用义务的意图 - 决定被确认 - 欧盟商标被取消
The contested EUTM ‘Wong lo kat’ (word mark) was filed six days before the expiry of the grace period of an identical earlier EUTM (identical sign and goods). The proprietor of both these marks was he same. Moreover, an application for revocation was filed against the earlier EUTM and genuine use has only been proven for part of the goods. The Board of Appeal (BoA) finds that the contested mark was filed in bad faith [Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR] in order to circumvent the obligation of use of the earlier identical EUTM.
裁定主要内容：争议商标“王老吉”（文字商标）在相同的早期欧盟商标（相同的标志和商品）的宽限期到期前六天提交。这两枚商标的所有者是同一人。此外，该枚商标已经被提起基于不使用的撤销申请，申请人只对部分商品证明了其有进行真正的使用。欧盟上诉委员会（BoA）认为，争议商标重新申请，是恶意的，其目的是为了规避早期相同欧盟商标的使用义务，[欧盟商标法第59(1)(b)条]。
Applying the General Court’s judgment of 21/04/2021, T‑663/19, MONOPOLY, EU:T:2021:211, the BoA recalls that, in analysing bad faith, account may be taken of the commercial logic underlying the filing of the EUTM application and the chronology of events leading up to that filing. Although repeat filings of a mark are not prohibited per se, a filing that is carried out in order to avoid the consequences entailed by non-use of earlier marks may constitute a relevant factor which is capable of establishing bad faith. Although the onus on providing evidence of bad faith leans on the cancellation applicant, the EUTM proprietor is best placed to provide the BoA with information on its intentions at the time of applying for registration of that mark and in order to provide it with evidence capable of convincing it that, in spite of the existence of objective circumstances, those intentions were legitimate.
应用总法院2021年4月21日的判决，T-663/19，MONOPOLY，EU:T:2021:211，BoA回顾，在分析恶意时，可考虑到提交欧盟商标申请的商业逻辑以及导致该提交的事件的时间顺序。虽然重复提交商标本身并不是绝对被禁止的，但为了避免因较早商标的使用义务以及未进行使用而产生的不利后果而进行的重新提交证明该申请存在恶意。虽然提供恶意证据的举证责任是撤销申请人的，但该欧盟商标所有者才是最有可能向BoA提供相关证据证明其在申请注册该商标时的意图为善意的信息，并向BoA提供能够使人信服的证据，即，即便存在某些客观情况，但重新申请该商标的意图是合法的。
In the present case, the BoA cannot see any reasons in the refiling other than the dishonest intention to perpetuate the monopoly on the mark by circumventing the obligation of use of the earlier mark. Besides, the EUTM proprietor remained silent on its commercial logic. Consequently, the contested EUTM was filed in bad faith.
本案中，除了为了规避早期商标的使用义务，用以维持对未使用商标的垄断的不诚实意图，BoA看不出任何其他重新申请争议商标的正当理由。此外，欧盟商标所有者对其重新申请的商业逻辑保持沉默。因此，BoA认定争议欧盟商标是为了规避早期商标的使用义务恶意提交的。该商标应予以撤销。
来源：https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/-/refiling-an-identical-trade-mark-to-avoid-obligation-of-use-is-an-act-of-bad-faith