The trade mark’s Bond… James Bond… Or is it?
18 Feb 2025
The trade mark rights to a range of James Bond-related words and phrases are apparently being challenged and could potentially be revoked, according to reports in the news media.
Various James Bond trade marks covering different industry sectors and product types which may not have been used for five years, according to the news stories, are the subject of “cancellation actions based on non-use” applications by representatives of Austrian businessman Josef Kleindienst.
Mr Kleindienst’s JK Properties is building a number of European-themed islands as part of The World Islands artificial archipelago in Dubai. A spokesperson for the group told The Guardian “that the businessman has plans to utilise the Bond name if he wins his challenge, and that an ‘announcement is coming soon.”
According to The Guardian, versions of Bond’s name which are being challenged as trade marks include: James Bond Special Agent 007, James Bond 007, James Bond, James Bond: World of Espionage and the line “Bond, James Bond.”
The registered owner of these marks, and a huge number of other Bond-related trade marks around the world, is US-based company Danjaq, which is run by the family of the late film producer Albert R Broccoli, who was behind the 1962 film Dr No, the first Bond picture to star Sean Connery. Danjaq has been involved in almost every Bond film since.
However, under the rules for trade marks in both the European Union and the UK, if a TM holder does not use the marks for the goods and services they have been registered for within a five year period, they could potentially be revoked.
The Intellectual Property Office in the UK provides this guidance on revocation on its website:
“Revocation on grounds of non-use is the legal procedure for removing a registered trade mark from the UK register because the trade mark has not been used in the five years since the trade mark was registered, or for any uninterrupted period of five years and there are no proper reasons for non-use. It is possible to apply to remove the entire registration or just the registration of the mark for some of the goods and/or services.”
A trade mark owner has two months to respond to a revocation application.
Perhaps the most famous recent case of trade mark revocation is McDonald’s loss of the right to use the term Big Mac as a trade mark for chicken burgers in the European Union in 2024, after a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court. The BBC covered the 2024 decision here.
This was the culmination of a series of legal fights which started in 2015 when McDonald’s tried to use its TM rights to the term Big Mac to stop an Irish burger restaurant using the name Supermac. McDonald’s did retain the Big Mac TM rights for beef burgers in the EU. Both sides claimed victory.
However, from the point of view of the latest challenge to the James Bond marks, the learnings from the Big Mac case are that the courts will look for solid evidence of actual sales of the products in the categories for which they have been registered, and that it may be bad practice for TM applications to cover too many different goods and services. McDonald’s is also understood to have made the mistake of, in some instances, submitting advertising and marketing material rather than actual sales data for the products in question.
If TM holders cannot produce solid evidence to support real use in specific goods and services areas, but can for others, then it may be that they might lose the rights in some areas, but keep them for others.
In the UK, the recent decision in the UK Supreme Court in the SkyKick vs Sky case has made it even more important that companies are careful not to try and register trade marks for goods and services which they either then do not use or, arguably, never had the intention of using.
In that case, the Supreme Court’s ruling accepted SkyKick’s argument that Sky had registered “and were prepared to take enforcement action for alleged infringement of the registrations in respect of goods and services of such a range and breadth that it was implausible that Sky would ever provide them.” The Supreme Court agreed that this was evidence of ‘bad faith’ registrations, which is another legal ground for revoking trade marks.
The trade mark rights to a range of James Bond-related words and phrases are apparently being challenged and could potentially be revoked, according to reports in the news media.
Various James Bond trade marks covering different industry sectors and product types which may not have been used for five years, according to the news stories, are the subject of “cancellation actions based on non-use” applications by representatives of Austrian businessman Josef Kleindienst.
Mr Kleindienst’s JK Properties is building a number of European-themed islands as part of The World Islands artificial archipelago in Dubai. A spokesperson for the group told The Guardian “that the businessman has plans to utilise the Bond name if he wins his challenge, and that an ‘announcement is coming soon.”
According to The Guardian, versions of Bond’s name which are being challenged as trade marks include: James Bond Special Agent 007, James Bond 007, James Bond, James Bond: World of Espionage and the line “Bond, James Bond.”
The registered owner of these marks, and a huge number of other Bond-related trade marks around the world, is US-based company Danjaq, which is run by the family of the late film producer Albert R Broccoli, who was behind the 1962 film Dr No, the first Bond picture to star Sean Connery. Danjaq has been involved in almost every Bond film since.
However, under the rules for trade marks in both the European Union and the UK, if a TM holder does not use the marks for the goods and services they have been registered for within a five year period, they could potentially be revoked.
The Intellectual Property Office in the UK provides this guidance on revocation on its website:
“Revocation on grounds of non-use is the legal procedure for removing a registered trade mark from the UK register because the trade mark has not been used in the five years since the trade mark was registered, or for any uninterrupted period of five years and there are no proper reasons for non-use. It is possible to apply to remove the entire registration or just the registration of the mark for some of the goods and/or services.”
A trade mark owner has two months to respond to a revocation application.
Perhaps the most famous recent case of trade mark revocation is McDonald’s loss of the right to use the term Big Mac as a trade mark for chicken burgers in the European Union in 2024, after a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court. The BBC covered the 2024 decision here.
This was the culmination of a series of legal fights which started in 2015 when McDonald’s tried to use its TM rights to the term Big Mac to stop an Irish burger restaurant using the name Supermac. McDonald’s did retain the Big Mac TM rights for beef burgers in the EU. Both sides claimed victory.
However, from the point of view of the latest challenge to the James Bond marks, the learnings from the Big Mac case are that the courts will look for solid evidence of actual sales of the products in the categories for which they have been registered, and that it may be bad practice for TM applications to cover too many different goods and services. McDonald’s is also understood to have made the mistake of, in some instances, submitting advertising and marketing material rather than actual sales data for the products in question.
If TM holders cannot produce solid evidence to support real use in specific goods and services areas, but can for others, then it may be that they might lose the rights in some areas, but keep them for others.
In the UK, the recent decision in the UK Supreme Court in the SkyKick vs Sky case has made it even more important that companies are careful not to try and register trade marks for goods and services which they either then do not use or, arguably, never had the intention of using.
In that case, the Supreme Court’s ruling accepted SkyKick’s argument that Sky had registered “and were prepared to take enforcement action for alleged infringement of the registrations in respect of goods and services of such a range and breadth that it was implausible that Sky would ever provide them.” The Supreme Court agreed that this was evidence of ‘bad faith’ registrations, which is another legal ground for revoking trade marks.
The trade mark rights to a range of James Bond-related words and phrases are apparently being challenged and could potentially be revoked, according to reports in the news media.
Various James Bond trade marks covering different industry sectors and product types which may not have been used for five years, according to the news stories, are the subject of “cancellation actions based on non-use” applications by representatives of Austrian businessman Josef Kleindienst.
Mr Kleindienst’s JK Properties is building a number of European-themed islands as part of The World Islands artificial archipelago in Dubai. A spokesperson for the group told The Guardian “that the businessman has plans to utilise the Bond name if he wins his challenge, and that an ‘announcement is coming soon.”
According to The Guardian, versions of Bond’s name which are being challenged as trade marks include: James Bond Special Agent 007, James Bond 007, James Bond, James Bond: World of Espionage and the line “Bond, James Bond.”
The registered owner of these marks, and a huge number of other Bond-related trade marks around the world, is US-based company Danjaq, which is run by the family of the late film producer Albert R Broccoli, who was behind the 1962 film Dr No, the first Bond picture to star Sean Connery. Danjaq has been involved in almost every Bond film since.
However, under the rules for trade marks in both the European Union and the UK, if a TM holder does not use the marks for the goods and services they have been registered for within a five year period, they could potentially be revoked.
The Intellectual Property Office in the UK provides this guidance on revocation on its website:
“Revocation on grounds of non-use is the legal procedure for removing a registered trade mark from the UK register because the trade mark has not been used in the five years since the trade mark was registered, or for any uninterrupted period of five years and there are no proper reasons for non-use. It is possible to apply to remove the entire registration or just the registration of the mark for some of the goods and/or services.”
A trade mark owner has two months to respond to a revocation application.
Perhaps the most famous recent case of trade mark revocation is McDonald’s loss of the right to use the term Big Mac as a trade mark for chicken burgers in the European Union in 2024, after a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court. The BBC covered the 2024 decision here.
This was the culmination of a series of legal fights which started in 2015 when McDonald’s tried to use its TM rights to the term Big Mac to stop an Irish burger restaurant using the name Supermac. McDonald’s did retain the Big Mac TM rights for beef burgers in the EU. Both sides claimed victory.
However, from the point of view of the latest challenge to the James Bond marks, the learnings from the Big Mac case are that the courts will look for solid evidence of actual sales of the products in the categories for which they have been registered, and that it may be bad practice for TM applications to cover too many different goods and services. McDonald’s is also understood to have made the mistake of, in some instances, submitting advertising and marketing material rather than actual sales data for the products in question.
If TM holders cannot produce solid evidence to support real use in specific goods and services areas, but can for others, then it may be that they might lose the rights in some areas, but keep them for others.
In the UK, the recent decision in the UK Supreme Court in the SkyKick vs Sky case has made it even more important that companies are careful not to try and register trade marks for goods and services which they either then do not use or, arguably, never had the intention of using.
In that case, the Supreme Court’s ruling accepted SkyKick’s argument that Sky had registered “and were prepared to take enforcement action for alleged infringement of the registrations in respect of goods and services of such a range and breadth that it was implausible that Sky would ever provide them.” The Supreme Court agreed that this was evidence of ‘bad faith’ registrations, which is another legal ground for revoking trade marks.
The trade mark rights to a range of James Bond-related words and phrases are apparently being challenged and could potentially be revoked, according to reports in the news media.
Various James Bond trade marks covering different industry sectors and product types which may not have been used for five years, according to the news stories, are the subject of “cancellation actions based on non-use” applications by representatives of Austrian businessman Josef Kleindienst.
Mr Kleindienst’s JK Properties is building a number of European-themed islands as part of The World Islands artificial archipelago in Dubai. A spokesperson for the group told The Guardian “that the businessman has plans to utilise the Bond name if he wins his challenge, and that an ‘announcement is coming soon.”
According to The Guardian, versions of Bond’s name which are being challenged as trade marks include: James Bond Special Agent 007, James Bond 007, James Bond, James Bond: World of Espionage and the line “Bond, James Bond.”
The registered owner of these marks, and a huge number of other Bond-related trade marks around the world, is US-based company Danjaq, which is run by the family of the late film producer Albert R Broccoli, who was behind the 1962 film Dr No, the first Bond picture to star Sean Connery. Danjaq has been involved in almost every Bond film since.
However, under the rules for trade marks in both the European Union and the UK, if a TM holder does not use the marks for the goods and services they have been registered for within a five year period, they could potentially be revoked.
The Intellectual Property Office in the UK provides this guidance on revocation on its website:
“Revocation on grounds of non-use is the legal procedure for removing a registered trade mark from the UK register because the trade mark has not been used in the five years since the trade mark was registered, or for any uninterrupted period of five years and there are no proper reasons for non-use. It is possible to apply to remove the entire registration or just the registration of the mark for some of the goods and/or services.”
A trade mark owner has two months to respond to a revocation application.
Perhaps the most famous recent case of trade mark revocation is McDonald’s loss of the right to use the term Big Mac as a trade mark for chicken burgers in the European Union in 2024, after a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court. The BBC covered the 2024 decision here.
This was the culmination of a series of legal fights which started in 2015 when McDonald’s tried to use its TM rights to the term Big Mac to stop an Irish burger restaurant using the name Supermac. McDonald’s did retain the Big Mac TM rights for beef burgers in the EU. Both sides claimed victory.
However, from the point of view of the latest challenge to the James Bond marks, the learnings from the Big Mac case are that the courts will look for solid evidence of actual sales of the products in the categories for which they have been registered, and that it may be bad practice for TM applications to cover too many different goods and services. McDonald’s is also understood to have made the mistake of, in some instances, submitting advertising and marketing material rather than actual sales data for the products in question.
If TM holders cannot produce solid evidence to support real use in specific goods and services areas, but can for others, then it may be that they might lose the rights in some areas, but keep them for others.
In the UK, the recent decision in the UK Supreme Court in the SkyKick vs Sky case has made it even more important that companies are careful not to try and register trade marks for goods and services which they either then do not use or, arguably, never had the intention of using.
In that case, the Supreme Court’s ruling accepted SkyKick’s argument that Sky had registered “and were prepared to take enforcement action for alleged infringement of the registrations in respect of goods and services of such a range and breadth that it was implausible that Sky would ever provide them.” The Supreme Court agreed that this was evidence of ‘bad faith’ registrations, which is another legal ground for revoking trade marks.
Read Recent Articles
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2025. All rights reserved.
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2025. All rights reserved.
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2025. All rights reserved.
Inngot's online platform identifies all your intangible assets and demonstrates their value to lenders, investors, acquirers, licensees and stakeholders
Accreditations
Copyright © Inngot Limited 2019-2025. All rights reserved.