FIND MY CAR
Fails due to
Deadline.
FIND MY CAR
Fails due to
Deadline.
by
Can a missed deadline at the EUIPO be remedied retroactively by transferring the trademark to a company for which an extended deadline is still in effect? And what good is an application for reinstatement if the fee is never paid? The General Court of the European Union has closed off both avenues.
Apple Challenges “FIND MY CAR”
A Slovenian company filed an international application for the word mark FIND MY CAR on August 17, 2016, designating the European Union. The trademark was registered on December 19, 2017.
On March 13, 2023, Apple filed a request with the EUIPO to declare the trademark invalid. Invalidity means that a trademark is canceled because its owner has not made genuine use of it. The trademark owner submitted evidence of use. The EUIPO rejected part of this evidence due to its format and because the deadline had passed; it did not accept evidence in the form of hyperlinks. On April 25, 2024, the EUIPO’s Invalidity Division declared the trademark fully lapsed.
The deadline has expired, and the trademark is being transferred to Ukraine
On June 21, 2024, the trademark owner filed an appeal. Under the EU Trademark Regulation, such an appeal must be substantiated within four months of service of the contested decision. This deadline expired on August 30, 2024, without any statement of grounds having been received.
On September 13, 2024, the trademark owner and a company based in Kyiv filed an application with the EUIPO. The trademark had been transferred to the Ukrainian company pursuant to a contract dated July 1, 2024. At that time, a decision by the Executive Director of the EUIPO applied to parties based in Ukraine. According to that decision, all deadlines expiring between June 16, 2024, and September 15, 2024, were extended until September 16, 2024. The new owner was entered in the register on September 13, 2024, and filed the statement of grounds for the appeal on the same day. In the alternative, she requested reinstatement to the previous status, meaning that the missed deadline be treated as if it had been met.
On May 8, 2025, the EUIPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. On June 19, 2025, the EUIPO was notified that the trademark had been re-transferred to the Slovenian company. The company filed a lawsuit with the General Court of the European Union.
The trademark owner’s arguments
The trademark owner argued that the extension of the deadline must apply regardless of who is the owner of the trademark at any given time. The transfer of rights had been notified within the extended time limit. The decision did not provide for an exception for transfers during the proceedings. Legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, and equal treatment required uniform application.
In support of her motion for reinstatement, she argued that EUIPO had never formally requested her to pay the fee. Furthermore, she contended that the Board of Appeal should have taken her evidence of use into account.
The General Court dismisses the action
In its judgment of October 14, 2026—Case No. T-451/25 —the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action. The Slovenian company is to bear the costs. Apple participated in the proceedings as an intervenor. Only a preliminary version of the judgment is available at this time.
Why doesn’t the transfer prevent the deadline from being missed?
In the court’s view, the new owner of a Union trademark can assert its rights only once the transfer of rights has been entered in the register. This entry is effective only prospectively and not retroactively. The Ukrainian company therefore did not become a party to the proceedings until September 13, 2024.
At that point, the previous owner’s deadline had already expired two weeks earlier. The Slovenian company was not headquartered in Ukraine, so the extension never applied to it. The new owner took over the proceedings at the stage in which she found them. She could not have acquired procedural rights that her predecessor no longer possessed.
In the absence of a relevant provision, neither Article 68(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 nor Decision EX-24-5 can be interpreted as permitting a change in the trademark owner during the proceedings to restart time limits that have already expired.
In the court’s view, the trademark owner could not invoke legal certainty and equal treatment. These principles required strict adherence to procedural deadlines. Furthermore, the extension granted to Ukrainian parties was an exception and should therefore be interpreted narrowly. Nor did the purpose of the order—to make it easier for companies in Ukraine to comply with their obligations—warrant a broader interpretation.
Why was the application for reinstatement denied?
Under the EU Trademark Regulation, an application for reinstatement is not considered filed until the fee for it has been paid. According to the court’s findings, neither of the two companies paid this fee.
The court did not accept the argument that no demand for payment had been issued. In a letter dated November 12, 2024, the EUIPO had pointed out the obligation to pay, specified the fee of 200 euros, and outlined the consequences of nonpayment. The trademark owner had thus been duly informed. The regulation does not require a formal demand for payment.
The objection regarding the evidence of use was also unsuccessful. The Board of Appeals had dismissed the appeal as inadmissible, and the evidence had no bearing on that decision. Thus, no appellate body examined the merits of whether “FIND MY CAR” was actually used.
Conclusion
Procedural deadlines are strictly enforced under European Union trademark law, and an exception for companies based in Ukraine is not a means of remedying missed deadlines by other companies. For trademark owners, this demonstrates that a single failure to meet a deadline can cost them the trademark without their use ever being reviewed on appeal.
The trademark was transferred to Ukraine after the deadline had expired and was subsequently transferred back following proceedings before the Board of Appeals. The ruling does not address whether this constituted an abusive arrangement. It determines solely the date of registration. It remains unclear whether a transfer registered in a timely manner with the apparent purpose of taking advantage of a special deadline would be valid.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Trademark law!
