trademark
Is it incumbent on a trademark holder to conduct trade under that mark?
<p>In the United States is it incumbent on a trademark holder to conduct trade under that trademark to retain the trademark?</p>
<p>For example, Venus pencils was an old trademark that was bought in 1973 by Faber Castell and is no longer used. No pencils have been produced under this trademark in over 40 years. So, let's imagine someone starts making pencils using this trademark, could Faber Castell bring a successful action against them, or has Faber Castell lost the ability to control the trademark by failing to use it?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/CvHAe.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/CvHAe.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

<h2>Trademarks must be used to retain validity</h2>
<p>Trademarks are subject to a <a href="https://epiphany.law/articles/articles/trademark-non-use" rel="nofollow noreferrer">use it or lose it</a> rule. In Australia, non use for 3 years ends the trademark.</p>

<p>In the US, a trademark which has not been used in commerce for five years may be challenged and, if the challenge succeeds, removed from active registration.</p>
