The Spy Who Lost His Licence

“The name’s Bond, James Bond.” But perhaps not for much longer, as multiple legal challenges relating to the merchandising of goods and services under James Bond related trademarks have been filed in both the UK and EU. In this article, Cian Duane, Partner CKT, and Ross Cudmore, Trainee Solicitor, explore the legal and strategic implications of these challenges, and what they reveal about the risks of trademark non-use for rights holders across all industries.

James Bond No More?

In February of this year Austrian property developer Josef Kleindienst initiated cancellation actions in both the UK and EU, arguing that trademarks including “007” and “Bond, James Bond” should be revoked due to non-use over the past five years. The last James Bond film was released in late 2021, but with no timeline for production of the next film, it is unlikely the franchise will see a new film in the next few years.

The Bond trademarks are registered to the US-based company Danjaq, which controls the rights to worldwide James Bond merchandising in conjunction with the UK-based production company Eon.

Danjaq had an initial 60 days to file its defence of the trademarks after the challenge. It has done so with the UK Intellectual Property Office but has requested more time to file in the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). As a general rule, the EUIPO will grant a unilateral request for an extension that is received in time. However further extensions are highly unlikely unless there are exceptional circumstances.

On the 11^th of June 2025, Danjag’s representatives requested that the EUIPO consolidate the multiple challenges into a single proceeding to avoid contradictory outcomes. The representatives also alleged that the proceedings represented an abuse of process and that they would elaborate in more detail in a forthcoming overarching submission for all pending revocation actions.

The “Non-Use” Principle

This situation highlights the importance of the “non-use” principle in trademark law.

Under both UK and EU trademark law, a registered trademark can be revoked if it has not been put to genuine use in the relevant territory for a continuous period of five years, unless there are valid reasons for non-use.  The burden of proof lies with the trademark owner to demonstrate genuine use.

The European Court of Justice in Minimax [1]clarified that genuine use must involve real commercial exploitation of the trademark, not just internal use or token gestures. The scale, frequency and nature of use are all relevant but even limited use may suffice if it aligns with the market characteristics of the goods or services.

Lessons for Trademark Owners

Here are three key steps trademark holders should consider:

1. Maintain robust documentation. Regularly collect and update documentation relating to the use of trademarks e.g. marketing material, invoices, annual turnover figures, dated photographs or images of the product bearing the mark. This can be used to counter non-use allegations because the burden of proof lies with the trademark holder not the challenger.
2. Use trademark monitoring tools to track potential infringements or misuse of your trademark. Unchecked infringement can lead to brand dilution, customer confusion, and legal disputes.
3. Monitor regulatory changes in the EU to stay updated on new directives and regulations. As the James Bond proceedings continue there will likely be useful insights into how the non-use provisions are enforced and what defences can be raised by trademark holders.

Final Thoughts

The James Bond trademark dispute is more than a headline, it’s a cautionary tale for any business that relies on brand recognition. Proactive trademark management is essential to maintaining legal protection and commercial value.

If you would like to review your intellectual property strategy or discuss how these developments may affect your business, CKT’s Commercial Team is here to help.

[1] Case C-40/01 Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV