EU General Court: Re-Filing a Mark to Dodge Proof of Use Is Bad Faith (Waterdrop)

By Imaduddin

Photo: andprice / Pixabay

On 21 October 2026, the General Court of the European Union dismissed an appeal by Qingdao Ecopure Filter Co. Ltd, a Chinese water filter company, and confirmed that its EU word mark Waterdrop is invalid for part of the goods it covers. The judgment in Case T-541/25 is a clear statement of a rule that brand owners sometimes forget: filing the same mark again to restart the clock on genuine use can be bad faith.

The facts

According to the judgment, the company's predecessor registered a figurative Waterdrop mark in 2016 for water filters and air filtering installations. In June 2021, shortly after the five-year period in which an EU mark must be put to genuine use had run out, it filed a new Waterdrop word mark covering a longer list of Class 11 goods, including many water filters. The marks were later transferred to Qingdao Ecopure, which then opposed several EU WATERDROP applications filed by Waterdrop Microdrink GmbH, an Austrian company.

Waterdrop Microdrink applied to invalidate the 2021 mark. EUIPO's Cancellation Division rejected the application, but the Board of Appeal partly reversed it. It found that, for the goods identical to those of the older mark, the new filing was a re-filing meant to avoid having to prove use. For the remaining goods, it found no bad faith.

What the court decided

The General Court dismissed all of the applicant's pleas and ordered it to pay the costs of EUIPO and the intervener. It also refused to consider several new annexes that the applicant had filed for the first time before the court, including material meant to show market developments and use of the older mark. The court reviews the Board's decision on the record that the Board had; evidence not filed at EUIPO stage generally cannot be added later.

The court rejected the argument that the new filing was simply a modernised mark with an updated list of goods. Where the new filing overlaps with the old one and the timing points to an attempt to avoid the use requirement, a commercial explanation has to be convincing and supported by evidence.

Lessons for filing in Indonesia

Indonesia has a similar non-use rule. Under Article 74 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications, a registered mark can be removed if it has not been used in trade for five consecutive years since registration or last use (the period was extended from three to five years by Constitutional Court Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023). Article 21(3) allows an application filed in bad faith to be refused, and registered marks can be cancelled on that ground under Article 76.

We are not aware of an Indonesian court decision that addresses re-filing to avoid non-use in the same terms as the EU court. Still, the practical advice is the same in both systems. Keep evidence of use for each class of goods, file new marks for real changes in branding or products, and record the business reason for any new filing at the time it is made. Brand owners who rely on a new filing to get around a weak use record risk losing both marks.

Sources

• EUR-Lex, Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2026, Case T-541/25, Qingdao Ecopure v EUIPO – Waterdrop Microdrink (Waterdrop)
• General Court of the EU, judgment of 21 October 2026, Qingdao Ecopure Filter v EUIPO – Waterdrop Microdrink (Waterdrop), Case T-541/25 (text via lagen.nu)
• Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (EUR-Lex)