14.3.2016

The EU Trade Mark Reform Package – Key Points You Need to Know

Significant changes are on their way for trade mark owners in the EU. With the publication of the EU trade mark reform package in the EU’s Official Journal just before the year-end break, the countdown for the new rules to come in has begun.

The reform package consists of (i) a Regulation (EU) No 2015/2424 amending the existing Community trade mark regulation (the Amending Regulation) as of 23 March 2016 and (ii) a Directive (EU) No 2015/2436 effectively replacing the existing trade mark directive (the Directive). The EU’s Member States are permitted three years to transpose the Directive into national law, with the exception of the envisaged administrative cancellation procedures for which they are given seven years.

Here are the key points you need to know. Special attention is required from owners of EUTMs that have been applied for prior to 22 June 2012 – see section 1 below.

1. Goods and Services Covered by an EUTM

The Amending Regulation favours a literal interpretation of the Nice class headings and thereby confirms the contested IP Translator decision of the Court of Justice of the EU. In practice, this means that Nice class headings will only protect goods or services covered by the literal meaning of that class. This literal approach differs from the more expansive ‘class-heading-covers-all’ approach, which extended protection to all goods or services in a particular class.

This shift in interpretation has the potential to significantly reduce the scope of protection enjoyed by an EUTM applied for prior to 22 June 2012 (effectively prior to the date of the IP Translator decision). The Amending Regulation recognises this by providing a sunset period during which owners of concerned EUTMs ‘may declare that their intention on the date of filing had been to seek protection in respect of goods or services beyond those covered by the literal meaning of the heading of that class’ (Article 28(8) of the Amending Regulation). The sunset period ends on 24 September 2016, and declarations to this effect should be filed by that date accordingly.

All EUTM owners affected by this should carefully review their registrations and consider if any amendments are necessary to protect their rights. If such an owner does not take any action during the sunset period, the scope of their EUTM will be limited to the literal meaning of its class heading.

2. Changes in Terminology

From 23 March 2016 and without any formalities or action from their owners, Community trade marks will be known as European Union trade marks (EUTM). On the same date, the Office for Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), which is the trade marks and designs registry of the EU, will change its name to European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

3. Trade Marks no Longer Need to be Graphically Representable

The removal of the requirement for a trade mark to be graphically representable permits applicants to obtain protection for smells, noises or motions, for example. However, this always requires that their representation is possible in a manner which enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded (Article 1(8) of the Amending Regulation).

Any business should carefully consider if it uses any marks that have become eligible for protection as a result of this change.

4. Counterfeits Transiting through the EU

The position of trade mark owners with regards to counterfeited products transiting through the EU has been strengthened significantly. Customs may now seize such counterfeit goods even when their final destination is outside the EU. The owner of the goods may, however, request their release by proving that the trade mark owner cannot prevent the sale of the goods concerned in the country of final destinations.

5. Fee Structure

There will be a reduction in the application fees to register an EUTM. However, the basic fee, set at €850 for electronic filings, will only get you one class of goods and services and no longer three classes for the price of one. Instead, you will now need to pay a surcharge for each additional class. This effectively means that multi-class filing will be more expensive. The upside of this according to the law makers will be more focused trade mark applications and ultimately less unused marks on the EUTM register. 

Renewal fees will also be lowered. If you have many renewals due this year, you may consider if it is possible to defer them until the revised fees are in force on 23 March 2016.

6. Miscellaneous

The reform package also streamlines and harmonises trade mark rules relating to the application procedure at national registries, grounds for refusal or invalidity, infringement, defences and revocation.

As referred to above, the Directive requires Member States to introduce an administrative cancellation procedure for trade marks. This will bring significant benefits for parties who, for example, are seeking revocation of a trade mark or declarations of invalidity. Such procedures will be a viable alternative to lengthy and potentially costly proceedings in national Courts.

Bottom Line

The reform package provides compelling reasons to review your trade mark strategy this year. The minimum each business should do is to consider if any of its EUTM registrations require updating in accordance with point 1 above.


For further information, please contact:

Nina Mikander
Katri Kiviniemi
Sakari Salonen

 

Latest references

We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024
We advised Tesi (Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) in its investment in the heavy duty vehicles company Oy Sisu Auto Ab. With this investment, Tesi became an owner in the company with a share of 24.4 per cent. Sisu Auto is a pioneer in the Nordic market in the development of heavy duty vehicles. Sisu’s core competences are in the product development and production of trucks and military vehicles. Tesi is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies. The investments managed by Tesi total 2.1 billion euros.
Case published 19.8.2024