{"id":34199,"date":"2026-07-02T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/?p=34199"},"modified":"2026-07-03T14:15:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T12:15:31","slug":"zoom-vs-zoom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/","title":{"rendered":"Zoom vs. Zoom"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignfull v4-pattern-hero v4-pattern-hero--post is-style-background-blend is-style-arrow has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-cover alignfull is-light v4-pattern-hero__cover\" style=\"padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--80);padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--80);min-height:75vh;aspect-ratio:unset;\"><img data-dominant-color=\"cbaa10\" data-has-transparency=\"false\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" sizes=\"auto, 100vw\" class=\"wp-block-cover__image-background wp-image-34195 size-large not-transparent\" alt=\"ZOOM vs. ZOOM, Nichtigkeitsantrag, EUIPO, B\u00f6sgl\u00e4ubigkeit, Markenrecht, Rchtsanwalt\" src=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg\" style=\"--dominant-color: #cbaa10; object-position:51% 87%\" data-object-fit=\"cover\" data-object-position=\"51% 87%\" srcset=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-300x169.jpg 300w, https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-768x432.jpg 768w, https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-2048x1152.jpg 2048w\" \/><span aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-cover__background has-base-background-color has-background-dim-0 has-background-dim\"><\/span><div class=\"wp-block-cover__inner-container has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-cover-is-layout-constrained\">\n<div style=\"height:5em\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-left is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-97ba1214 wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--80);padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--60)\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-group has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-a6a2a725 wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\r\n<h1 id=\"multirow-headline-block_e8831ceec0e814ad23677016de0be908\" class=\"wp-block-visual4-multirow-headline\">\r\n    <div class=\"wp-block-visual4-multirow-headline\">\n\n<p class=\"has-gigantic-font-size wp-block-paragraph\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0%;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:1000;line-height:1;text-transform:uppercase\">Zoom<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-left has-huge-font-size wp-block-paragraph\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:15%;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:1000;line-height:1;text-transform:uppercase\">vs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-contrast-color has-text-color has-link-color has-gigantic-font-size wp-elements-15b4f349aff1b0916fd0e2c46c041a39 wp-block-paragraph\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0%;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:1000;line-height:1;text-transform:uppercase\"><span class=\"v4-marker-highlight-background\">Zoom<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<\/div> \r\n<\/h1>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group has-small-font-size is-nowrap is-layout-flex wp-container-core-group-is-layout-878d3859 wp-block-group-is-layout-flex\" style=\"margin-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--20);margin-bottom:0;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:italic;font-weight:300;text-transform:uppercase\"><div style=\"font-style:italic;font-weight:300;text-transform:uppercase\" class=\"wp-block-post-date has-small-font-size\"><time datetime=\"2026-07-02T09:00:00+02:00\">2. July 2026<\/time><\/div>\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">of<\/p>\n\n\n<div style=\"font-style:italic;font-weight:600\" class=\"wp-block-post-author-name\">Clemens Pfitzer<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-left is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-3b99a472 wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>The ZOOM trademark dispute before the EUIPO centered on the question of when a repeated trademark application can be considered to be in bad faith. Is a company allowed to reapply for its trademark as often as it likes in order to avoid the requirement to use the trademark? <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<h2 id=\"h-zwei-unternehmen-ein-name\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Two companies, one name<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the age of video conferencing, when people think of \u201cZoom,\u201d the American company Zoom Communications, Inc. probably comes to mind. Far less well-known is the Japanese company Zoom Corporation, which has been manufacturing audio equipment\u2014including field recorders, guitar effects pedals, and studio accessories\u2014for decades. Both companies use the \u201cZOOM\u201d trademark. It was precisely this situation that led to a trademark dispute, which the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled on June 26, 2026.    <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\" id=\"h-uberschrift\">On April 5, 2018, the Japanese Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom designated the European Union in an international registration for its word and figurative mark \u201cZOOM.\u201d The application covered a wide range of goods in Classes 9 and 15, including microphones, recording devices, loudspeakers, musical instruments, and effects units. On May 28, 2021, Zoom Communications, Inc. filed a request for the complete invalidation of this trademark. The allegation was that the application had been filed in bad faith.<\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The allegation that the trademark is a repeat offense<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Japanese company\u2019s \u201cZOOM\u201d trademark was not, in fact, the first of its kind. As early as 1996, the company had filed the word trademark \u201cZOOM,\u201d followed in 2006 by a virtually identical figurative trademark. As the American company Zoom Communications, Inc. argued, both of these earlier trademarks had actually been used only for a limited portion of the registered goods. Put simply, Zoom Communications\u2019 argument was that the new application from 2018 was nothing more than a copy of the older trademarks with a new five-year grace period for use. In doing so, the Japanese trademark owner had avoided the obligation to repeatedly submit evidence of use in ongoing opposition and cancellation proceedings. Furthermore, the trademark owner had used its trademark purely as a weapon to take action against the American company Zoom Communications, Inc., even though the latter\u2019s business\u2014video conferencing software\u2014had nothing to do with the actual business of the Japanese Zoom\u2014high-quality audio equipment.       <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The EUIPO\u2019s Invalidity Division rejected the request in its entirety in August 2025. The U.S.-based company Zoom Communications, Inc. subsequently filed an appeal on October 15, 2025.  <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The grounds for the Board of Appeal&#8217;s decision<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The  <a href=\"https:\/\/euipo.europa.eu\/eSearchCLW\/#key\/trademark\/APL_20260626_R1860_2025-2_W11267107\">The Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO issued its decision on June 26, 2026\u2014Case No. R 1860\/2025-2 <\/a>  against Zoom Communications, upheld the EUIPO&#8217;s decision in its entirety, and dismissed the appeal. It found that there was no alleged bad faith. <\/p>\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group v4-pattern-general-quote-box has-kpw-blue-background-color has-background has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"margin-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--60);margin-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--60)\">\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--70);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--70)\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Such a repeated application, in and of itself, cannot constitute bad faith.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There is simply no provision prohibiting a new application. Only if additional, concrete evidence were to emerge could one assume an improper intent. Zoom Communications was unable to provide such evidence in this case.  <\/p>\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why the time frame ruled out the possibility of an attempt to circumvent the rule<\/h3>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Particularly revealing is the way the Board handled the timeline. The EU designation was filed on April 5, 2018\u2014almost five years after the expiration of the grace period for the figurative mark from 2006 and as many as thirteen years after the expiration of the grace period for the word mark from 1996. The Board argued that anyone who deliberately files a new trademark application to evade the obligation to use the trademark would logically do so shortly before the expiration of the existing grace period and not years afterward. If circumvention had indeed been the goal, the trademark owner would have let her chance slip away long ago. Furthermore, the new application itself was not without risk, since by choosing a later filing date, the trademark owner also accepted the risk that third-party rights might have arisen in the meantime.    <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Board also rejected the argument that the new application was filed suspiciously close in time to a period during which the trademark owner had repeatedly been required to provide evidence of use in other proceedings. The mere temporal connection between cancellation proceedings against an earlier trademark and the filing of a new, similar trademark is not, in and of itself, sufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith. The technological advancements in audio devices since 2006\u2014particularly through increasing connectivity and internet capability\u2014constitute a plausible and reasonable explanation for why the trademark owner sought to adapt its application.  <\/p>\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A broad application is not proof of dishonesty<\/h3>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Zoom Communications\u2019 second argument concerned the scope of the application. Terms such as \u201cdownloadable software,\u201d \u201ccomputers,\u201d or \u201csmartphones\u201d were far removed from what the Japanese company ZOOM actually sells, namely specialized audio equipment. The Board also rejected this argument. Neither <a href=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/rechtsgebiet\/markenrecht\/\" id=\"209\">trademark law<\/a> nor existing case law would permit a conclusion of bad faith based solely on the length or breadth of a list of goods and services. A broad application is a common and legitimate practice, as long as it remains within a plausible context related to the applicant\u2019s field of business.    <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Here, the Board drew a distinction from the well-known British SkyKick case, in which the television broadcaster Sky had sought protection for 22 Nice Classes, including goods such as bleach, which were clearly unrelated to the business of a television broadcaster. In the present case, although the application by the Japanese company ZOOM also straddles the boundaries of what is reasonable\u2014for example, in the case of smartphones or educational materials\u2014it remains, on the whole, within the core area of audio and music technology. Furthermore, trademark law is not, in any event, tied to an intention to use the mark at the time of filing. A company is certainly permitted to file an application for goods it intends to offer in the future, and the business field need not be identical to the list of goods.   <\/p>\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Trademark as a Weapon<\/h3>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Perhaps the most serious allegation was that the Japanese company ZOOM had deliberately used its trademark as a legal lever against the American company Zoom Communications, Inc., including in several opposition and cancellation proceedings in which it had claimed similarity to entirely different services, such as video conferencing software. The Board acknowledged that a systematic pattern of abusive enforcement could, in principle, serve as evidence of bad faith. However, no such pattern had been proven in this case. Furthermore, the contested trademark had already been registered prior to the subsequent applications filed by the American company Zoom Communications, Inc., meaning that the Japanese trademark owner could not have known at the time of its own application that its future competitor would even file its own \u201cZOOM\u201d trademarks. The Chamber viewed the fact that the trademark owner had, in some recent proceedings following the initiation of the invalidation proceedings, relied in part on other, earlier trademarks as a reasonable strategic adjustment and not as evidence of unfair intentions.      <\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"h-praxistipps\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Practical Tips<\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\" id=\"h-\">For companies that wish to re-register an existing trademark after several years, the decision provides some reassurance, but it also highlights what really matters. Those who can plausibly justify their application based on actual business developments\u2014such as technological progress, new product lines, or market expansion\u2014are in a much better position than those who simply resubmit the same trademark without a reasonable explanation. In this particular case, it was especially helpful that the new application was filed well in advance of the critical deadlines. By contrast, anyone who re-registers a nearly identical trademark shortly before the expiration of a grace period for use is venturing into significantly more dangerous territory. Nor should the breadth of a list of goods and services be underestimated. While it is not in itself an indication of bad faith, it can certainly contribute to shifting the burden of proof when viewed in conjunction with other circumstances.     <\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"h-fazit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns v4-pattern-text-copy-half-col is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-f56f613f wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision highlights the high standards that the EUIPO applies with regard to bad faith and the burden of proof in this regard.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The distinction from the Monopoly case\u2014in which bad faith was affirmed precisely because of repeated identical applications intended to circumvent the requirement of use\u2014is not entirely convincing. The key difference cited by the Chamber is ultimately that Hasbro itself had admitted to its intent to circumvent the requirement at the time. Without such an admission, the hurdle for proving bad faith thus seems nearly insurmountable, even if the external circumstances\u2014such as, in this case, a nearly identical trademark for largely overlapping goods\u2014certainly give rise to doubt. This could encourage imitators to pursue similar strategies, as long as they do not openly communicate their motives.   <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\">\n<div style=\"height:100px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"margin-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--80);margin-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--80)\">\n<div style=\"height:50px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide v4-pattern-cta-box has-secondary-background-color has-background has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-0c8cea62 wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"padding-top:0;padding-right:0;padding-bottom:0\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns alignwide are-vertically-aligned-top v4-pattern-cta-box__columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-71c143ff wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex\" style=\"padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-vertically-aligned-top v4-pattern-cta-box__columns-column is-layout-flow wp-container-core-column-is-layout-fb77afb0 wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\" style=\"padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50);padding-bottom:0;flex-basis:60%\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-right is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-1931a79c wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\r\n<div id=\"multirow-headline-block_be0aa49d879c5c2dcebcc2fae1f1238f\" class=\"wp-block-visual4-multirow-headline alignwide\">\r\n    <div class=\"wp-block-visual4-multirow-headline\">\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-left has-huge-font-size wp-block-paragraph\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0%;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:1000;line-height:1;text-transform:uppercase\">We are happy to<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-left has-x-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:8%;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:1000;line-height:0.9;text-transform:uppercase\">advise you about<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-left has-huge-font-size wp-block-paragraph\" style=\"margin-top:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0%;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;font-style:normal;font-weight:1000;line-height:0.9;text-transform:uppercase\">Trademark law!<\/p>\n\n<\/div> \r\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group is-nowrap is-layout-flex wp-container-core-group-is-layout-9da75b5c wp-block-group-is-layout-flex\" style=\"margin-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--30);margin-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--30)\">\r\n\r\n<div class=\"wp-block-visual4-contact-modal__button\">\r\n            \r\n        <div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\r\n            \r\n\r\n<div class=\"wp-block-button v4-contact-modal-button is-style-fill\" style=\"font-style:normal;font-weight:600\" data-form-id=\"8\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link has-contrast-color has-base-background-color has-text-color has-background has-link-color wp-element-button\">Contact form<\/a><\/div>\r\n\r\n        <\/div>\r\n        \r\n    <\/div>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-style-mobile-only is-content-justification-left is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-a768b15a wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button is-style-arrow is-style-fill\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link has-base-background-color has-background wp-element-button\" href=\"tel:4971141019030\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--50);font-style:normal;font-weight:600\">Call now!<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-vertically-aligned-top v4-pattern-cta-box__columns-column v4-pattern-cta-box__columns-column--image is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\" style=\"flex-basis:40%\">\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full v4-pattern-cta-box__columns-column__image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/themes\/kpw-law\/assets\/samples\/person-cropped.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-23155\" \/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4904],"tags":[5376,6496,5286,6497,5042,5794,6495],"thema":[4896,4895,4897],"rechtsgebiet":[4898],"produkt":[],"class_list":["post-34199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-absolute-grounds-for-refusal","tag-bad-faith","tag-nullity","tag-repeated-trademark-application","tag-trademark-en","tag-trademark-application-in-bad-faith","tag-zoom","thema-internationale-registrierung-en","thema-marke-en","thema-markenformen-en","rechtsgebiet-markenrecht-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.7) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>ZOOM vs. ZOOM<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Zoom vs. Zoom\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"KPW Rechtsanw\u00e4lte und Fachanw\u00e4lte\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-02T07:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T12:15:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Branchen-scaled.avif\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1440\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Clemens Pfitzer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@clemenspfitzer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Clemens Pfitzer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Clemens Pfitzer\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bb7a5be61de17c2c027e254e249214bd\"},\"headline\":\"Zoom vs. Zoom\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-02T07:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T12:15:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1454,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"absolute grounds for refusal\",\"Bad faith\",\"Nullity\",\"repeated trademark application\",\"trademark\",\"Trademark application in bad faith\",\"Zoom\"],\"articleSection\":[\"General\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/\",\"name\":\"ZOOM vs. ZOOM\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-02T07:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T12:15:31+00:00\",\"description\":\"EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/zoom-vs-zoom\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Zoom vs. Zoom\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"KPW PartmbB \u2013 Rechtsanw\u00e4lte und Fachanw\u00e4lte\",\"description\":\"Rechtsanw\u00e4lte f\u00fcr IP- und IT-Recht\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"kpw.law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"KPW PartmbB\",\"alternateName\":\"KPW\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/KPW400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/KPW400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"KPW PartmbB\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/kpw\"],\"description\":\"KPW ist eine auf IP und IT-Recht spezialisierte Kanzlei mit Rechts- und Fachanw\u00e4lten in Stuttgart. KPW ber\u00e4t Unternehmen in den Bereichen Wettbewerbsrecht, Markenrecht, Designrecht, Urheberrecht, IT-Recht, Patentrecht, Datenschutzrecht, E-Commerce und Know-How-Schutz.\",\"email\":\"info@kpw.law\",\"telephone\":\"+4971141019030\",\"legalName\":\"KPW PartmbB\",\"foundingDate\":\"2010-04-01\",\"vatID\":\"DE270757792\",\"duns\":\"341580247\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"1\",\"maxValue\":\"10\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bb7a5be61de17c2c027e254e249214bd\",\"name\":\"Clemens Pfitzer\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/dc1ba1c2897d08484345b3e1c9524bf03ed6b3ef6bf06ef8b3f8811c1fb6c38e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/dc1ba1c2897d08484345b3e1c9524bf03ed6b3ef6bf06ef8b3f8811c1fb6c38e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/dc1ba1c2897d08484345b3e1c9524bf03ed6b3ef6bf06ef8b3f8811c1fb6c38e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Clemens Pfitzer\"},\"description\":\"Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt f\u00fcr gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Fachanwalt f\u00fcr IT-Recht, t\u00e4tig in den Bereichen Markenrecht, Wettbewerbsrecht, Urheberrecht, Designrecht, Know-How-Schutz, Patentrecht, IT-Recht, E-Commerce, Datenschutz\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kpw.law\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/pfitzer\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/clemenspfitzer\"],\"gender\":\"m\u00e4nnlich\",\"knowsAbout\":[\"Markenrecht\",\"Wettbewerbsrecht\",\"Designrecht\",\"Urheberrecht\",\"E-Commerce\",\"Datenschutzrecht\",\"Patentrecht\",\"IT-Recht\",\"Softwarelizenzen\",\"Gesch\u00e4ftsgeheimnisse\"],\"knowsLanguage\":[\"Englisch\",\"Deutsch\"],\"jobTitle\":\"Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt f\u00fcr gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Fachanwalt f\u00fcr IT-Recht\",\"worksFor\":\"KPW PartmbB\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"ZOOM vs. ZOOM","description":"EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Zoom vs. Zoom","og_description":"EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith.","og_url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/","og_site_name":"KPW Rechtsanw\u00e4lte und Fachanw\u00e4lte","article_published_time":"2026-07-02T07:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-03T12:15:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1440,"url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Branchen-scaled.avif","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Clemens Pfitzer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@clemenspfitzer","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Clemens Pfitzer","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/"},"author":{"name":"Clemens Pfitzer","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/bb7a5be61de17c2c027e254e249214bd"},"headline":"Zoom vs. Zoom","datePublished":"2026-07-02T07:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T12:15:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/"},"wordCount":1454,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg","keywords":["absolute grounds for refusal","Bad faith","Nullity","repeated trademark application","trademark","Trademark application in bad faith","Zoom"],"articleSection":["General"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/","url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/","name":"ZOOM vs. ZOOM","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-02T07:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T12:15:31+00:00","description":"EUIPO rejects the application for invalidation of the ZOOM trademark. According to the Board of Appeal, a repeated trademark application alone does not constitute bad faith.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/Zoom-vs-Zoom-1024x576.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/zoom-vs-zoom\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Zoom vs. Zoom"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/","name":"KPW PartmbB \u2013 Rechtsanw\u00e4lte und Fachanw\u00e4lte","description":"Rechtsanw\u00e4lte f\u00fcr IP- und IT-Recht","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#organization"},"alternateName":"kpw.law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#organization","name":"KPW PartmbB","alternateName":"KPW","url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/KPW400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/KPW400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"KPW PartmbB"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/kpw"],"description":"KPW ist eine auf IP und IT-Recht spezialisierte Kanzlei mit Rechts- und Fachanw\u00e4lten in Stuttgart. KPW ber\u00e4t Unternehmen in den Bereichen Wettbewerbsrecht, Markenrecht, Designrecht, Urheberrecht, IT-Recht, Patentrecht, Datenschutzrecht, E-Commerce und Know-How-Schutz.","email":"info@kpw.law","telephone":"+4971141019030","legalName":"KPW PartmbB","foundingDate":"2010-04-01","vatID":"DE270757792","duns":"341580247","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"1","maxValue":"10"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/bb7a5be61de17c2c027e254e249214bd","name":"Clemens Pfitzer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/dc1ba1c2897d08484345b3e1c9524bf03ed6b3ef6bf06ef8b3f8811c1fb6c38e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/dc1ba1c2897d08484345b3e1c9524bf03ed6b3ef6bf06ef8b3f8811c1fb6c38e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/dc1ba1c2897d08484345b3e1c9524bf03ed6b3ef6bf06ef8b3f8811c1fb6c38e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Clemens Pfitzer"},"description":"Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt f\u00fcr gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Fachanwalt f\u00fcr IT-Recht, t\u00e4tig in den Bereichen Markenrecht, Wettbewerbsrecht, Urheberrecht, Designrecht, Know-How-Schutz, Patentrecht, IT-Recht, E-Commerce, Datenschutz","sameAs":["https:\/\/kpw.law","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/pfitzer\/","https:\/\/x.com\/clemenspfitzer"],"gender":"m\u00e4nnlich","knowsAbout":["Markenrecht","Wettbewerbsrecht","Designrecht","Urheberrecht","E-Commerce","Datenschutzrecht","Patentrecht","IT-Recht","Softwarelizenzen","Gesch\u00e4ftsgeheimnisse"],"knowsLanguage":["Englisch","Deutsch"],"jobTitle":"Rechtsanwalt, Fachanwalt f\u00fcr gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Fachanwalt f\u00fcr IT-Recht","worksFor":"KPW PartmbB"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34199"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34208,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34199\/revisions\/34208"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34199"},{"taxonomy":"thema","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/thema?post=34199"},{"taxonomy":"rechtsgebiet","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/rechtsgebiet?post=34199"},{"taxonomy":"produkt","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kpw.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/produkt?post=34199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}