BGH (Federal Court of Justice) News

In its decision of September 11, 2025 (I ZB 6/25 – “Testa Rossa”), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed and clarified important principles regarding bad faith trademark filings. According to the ruling, the assumption of bad faith requires that the applicant filed the trademark with the intention of damaging or obstructing third-party interests; however, a link to a specifically affected third party is not required. The BGH further emphasizes that in cancellation proceedings, the applicant for cancellation generally bears the burden of establishing that conclusive and consistent objective indications of such dishonest intent exist. Only once these indications are established must the trademark owner explain their commercial motivation. Furthermore, the BGH clarifies that the mere existence of relative grounds for refusal, such as the existence of a well-known earlier mark, is not in itself sufficient to establish bad faith—such circumstances can only be taken into account as part of an overall assessment. In the specific case, the BGH saw no sufficient evidence that the trademark owner had applied for the designation “Testa Rossa” with the intention of obstruction. In particular, neither the large number of other trademark applications nor previous trademark disputes were sufficient to infer an unfair objective. The appeal on points of law (Rechtsbeschwerde) by the applicant was therefore dismissed.