“a fraudulent statement of bona fide intent to use can in some circumstances invalidate a trademark application or the resulting registration”
Unfortunately, it’s rather complicated. Bottom line: The system ultimately requires use or reputation of trademarks to justify injunctive relief. Here’s how we try to deal with in in US and Canada.
… A bona fide intent to use should be an essential prerequisite for filing a trademark application …
Interest of both traders ("+/- squatters") and the public are best protected by a system that ultimately requires use or reputation of trademarks to justify injunctive relief. Although there are good reasons for allowing trademark applications to be filed based on “intent to use” US/CAN laws contain safeguards to ensure that the rights of other traders and of the public are not adversely affected.
Further, unlike the situation in the United States, where a fraudulent statement of bona fide intent to use can in some circumstances invalidate a trademark application or the resulting registration.
In Europe, as the law now stands, the doctrine of bad faith cannot be invoked even in a case of deliberate over-claiming of a specification of goods and/or services.
My point is … We must focus on a workable ENS system; one that simply works instead of focusing on some system to arbitrate or worse, make final determinations on trademarks/trade-names/service marks/common law name rights/words used descriptively that have no owner rights is wrought with time-wasting energy.
Leave that work to actual federal IP (Intellectual Property) courts, because that’s what they do everyday. … In our international marketplace of different rules and norms trying to arbitrate or render judgement or injunctions is either ludicrous or extremely daring.