In Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co. Ltd v EUIPO and Waterdrop Microdrink GmbH, the General Court upheld an EUIPO decision declaring the WATERDROP trade mark invalid for certain goods on the basis of bad faith.
The case concerned a trade mark owner that had re-filed an almost identical WATERDROP mark covering many of the same water filtration products as an earlier registration. The Court agreed with EUIPO that the re-filing was not commercially justified and was instead intended to obtain a fresh five-year grace period, allowing the owner to avoid having to prove genuine use of its earlier mark.
The Court emphasised that simply re-filing a trade mark is not, by itself, bad faith. However, where a re-filing strategy is used to gain an unfair procedural advantage and circumvent key requirements of EU trade mark law, it can amount to bad faith.
A significant factor was that the later mark covered goods that were effectively identical to those already protected by the earlier registration, and the proprietor relied on the newer mark in opposition proceedings against a competitor’s WATERDROP applications. This supported the conclusion that the filing strategy was designed to strengthen enforcement rights without demonstrating genuine use of the earlier mark.
Why it matters: The judgment reinforces the principle that trade mark owners cannot use repeat filings to continually reset the proof of use period. Businesses should ensure that any re-filing strategy has a genuine commercial justification, as EUIPO and the courts will closely scrutinise attempts to gain procedural advantages through repeated registrations.
Read the judgment here: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62025TJ0541
