Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts

29 January 2016

New EU trademark regulations - some practicalities

23 March 2016 will see some fundamental changes to trademarks in the European Union.

Gone will be Community Trade Marks to be replaced with European Union trade marks.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) will become the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

The new names are clearer but what else may change that trademark owners and representatives should note? Scroll down to the bottom if you don't have time to read all this.

New fee structure

Official fees will change. It's generally good news.

The initial filing fee will be reduced by €50 to €850. However, rather than getting "three classes for the price of one" as with the current fees, the new initial filing fee covers one class only. Trademark cluttering is considered a concern in the EU and this is a step towards discouraging it.

If you need to cover two classes then the additional class fee for the second class is €50 so for such applications there will be no fee differences under the new and old systems.

For the third class upwards, the fee will be €150 per class. It is for these multi-class applications where it will get more expensive.

If you do have a three class or more application to file then you may want to consider filing it before 23 March.

Conversely, if you have a one class application, you could consider holding off filing until 23 March or after. It is not normally recommended to delay filings and the official fee saving is fairly small but could be taken advantage of if you have a priority filing.

Renewal fees will come down significantly with the basic fee dropping from €1350 to €850. The Office will apply the fee due at the time of renewal though to avoid "tactical" timing of renewals. If you've already paid future renewals using the old fees, don't worry, you'll be reimbursed. If you've done these renewals through a third party then you may need to 'nudge' them so money returned to them can make its way to you!

There will be some small fee decreases for the likes of oppositions and revocations in due course too. N.B. Application and renewal fees presume filings are made online.

Misleading invoices

The Office does not send invoices out . However, their name change may see an upsurge in activity from scammers. A cursory check of the UK Company Registers does not show any newly incorporated companies containing "EU Intellectual Property", but such entities may be being set up in other countries.

It is important that trademark owners and representatives remain vigilant.

In terms of payments to the Office, we can anticipate a need to update the beneficiary name details for the Office for when payments are made to them by bank transfer for payment of fees or to top up current accounts.

New website

We can imagine that there will be a new website address - and euipo.europa.eu currently redirects to the current OHIM website at oami.europa.eu.

I imagine a redirection in the other direction will be put in place on or after 23 March, but users may wish to update their favourites accordingly.

Many will recall the problems faced in late 2013 and early 2014 with the Office's revamped website. Let's hope these are not faced again or you may see IP practitioners take to social media in less than jovial moods.

Speaking of which, watch out in case the Office adopts new social media handles.

If the website does go down for whatever reason then TMview should remain available for trademark searches. Be wary though that if there are problems with the Office's website that TMview may not be able to access the EU database and search results may be missing EU applications or registrations.

Old specifications for class headings

The IP TRANSLATOR case changed a previous interpretation at the Office that registrations for class headings covered the entire class and specifications were not to be interpreted literally.

Trademark owners of registrations filed before 22 June 2012 that covered class headings (and therefore thought they were getting entire class protection) can now file Declarations stating the protection they require.
  • The deadline is 24 September 2016
  • The goods and/or services, other than those clearly covered by the literal meaning of a class heading, must be indicated in a "clear, precise and specific manner"
  • Such goods and/or services indicated must have been in the same International Class in force at the time of the application and contained in the alphabetical list for that class
If the deadline is not acted upon then any specifications for class headings will be interpreted literally (the means what it says approach).

EEA representation

Trademark owners and representatives from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which together with the EU member states make up the European Economic Area, will be able to act directly before the Office.

Applicants from these three nations would have often covered the EU through an International Registration but may now choose to file directly.

International Registrations

A practical disadvantage to designating the EU in an International Registration was the time it took to obtain protection as there is a more long-winded publication process.

This will now be shortened by five months, but if you take into account processing times at the Office of origin and WIPO, it is still quicker to file directly, even more so if your application can fulfil the Fast Track conditions.

At this time, there has been no word of a change in Individual fees for designating the European Union in an International Registration. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they are aligned with the new regular official fees.

There will be further changes in October 2017, but the key changes you may wish to look into now or very shortly are:

1. Update records and database with the new name e.g. change Community Trade Mark to European Union trade mark.
2. Update schedules of charges to show any new official fees and any pre-populated template documents containing the current fees.
3. If you have any three classes or more applications to file then get them on file soon, if possible.
4. For any one class applications, particularly where you have the security of a priority claim, you could hold off filing until after 23 March.
5. Be as alert as ever to misleading invoices.
6. Get ready to update beneficiary name details for making bank transfers to the Office.
7. Bookmark a new website address.
8. Review pre-22 June 2012 registrations for any that contain class headings and begin preparations to clarify the protection.
9. Docket the deadline of 24 September 2016 for such cases.

11 June 2013

On-line Design applications

Following last week's announcement from WIPO on their improved on-line filing facility for Hague International Design applications, this week I will look at the on-line filing abilities of some other Offices.

OHIM provides a platform for filing Registered Community Design applications on-line. This is well used and the ease of uploading representations makes the applications significantly easier.

Compare this to the United Kingdom where paper forms are still required and it can be a bit fiddly collating all the representations into order. The same is the case in Germany, Benelux and Portugal, as examples.

OHIM's Cooperation Fund should help all countries within the EU introduce on-line facilities for filing design applications in the future. Among its initiatives, many national trade mark applications in EU member states can be filed on-line. These are scheduled to be extended to design applications in due course.

Outside the European Union, Switzerland has not yet developed an on-line process although it does accept applications via e-mail. However, Switzerland can be included within a Hague application.

Further afield, Canada and Australia offer on-line tools for which they should be commended.

It is understandable that systems for on-line design applications need to be robust in order to cope with a large number of representations as attachments. This makes them less easy to implement.

In the UK at least, most national designs are filed by local, often individual, designers directly (bigger firms and those professionally represented tend to take the European or International route). Their voice is perhaps less heard than professional IP organisations. This factor may also contribute towards why the UK IPO may not have considered it a priority to implement an on-line filing system for designs. As the UK looks to revamp its design legislation, the practical improvement of developing an on-line tool may also be carried out ahead of any support from OHIM's Cooperation Fund..

26 July 2012

Football clubs and intellectual property rights

I'm a football fan. That's soccer to many people from the likes of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and even just across the Irish Sea in Ireland. Readers from these countries may not appreciate the "Beautiful Game" but they should fear not as a great number of my compatriots also do not understand what the appeal is of "watching 22 men run around kicking a ball" either.

Nevertheless, the European football season will rapidly be upon us and the commercial success of the game in Europe is obvious.

How do Europe's leading clubs compare when it comes to their IP protection? I have compiled some statistics using data from CTM-Online, RCD-Online and ROMARIN. As football becomes more and more globalised it made sense to me that research should be concentrated on who has sought protection across the European Union and through the Madrid Protocol or, in other words, outside of their national borders.

I have used Deloitte's report on Europe's 30 biggest clubs supplementing it with the Old Firm and the biggest side in the EU capital of Brussels, Anderlecht.

Rangers may prove to have the best IP portfolio for a club in Scottish League Division Three, that's assuming they are a successor in title to these IP assets. The original Rangers went into administration and will eventually be liquidated; the 'newco' will probably start life again three divisions lower. (You may have seen some additional comment on the Rangers brand on the IPKat recently, which I feel many football fans will disagree with.)

Statistics will never tell the whole story. Some of the more established teams may have obtained protection in other countries prior to the advent of the Community Trade Mark or could have different registration strategies. Some team names, particularly those of a place name, would be difficult to register as word marks. Registered designs will be unavailable for a club crest that has been unchanged for a number of years. A number of the design registrations are for new stadiums (and some for mascots) and many clubs have not moved grounds for many years.

Liverpool's historic Anfield home but for how long?
Designs for a new stadium are registered with OHIM
Perhaps interestingly given the tribal nature of football, a very cursory check has 12 of the 33 featured clubs using a representative based in another city. Furthermore, two sets of city rivals use the same representative, although the likelihood of disputes in the trade mark arena are far less than on the football field. Two of the 33 represented themselves directly before the OHIM. Is this a surprisingly low number given the in-house legal expertise these clubs often have?

The statistics would put Chelsea top of the European league - perhaps apt given they are the current champions of Europe. As a non-Chelsea fan, I have to admit to hoping a team with a smaller IP portfolio has a successful season ahead!

Volksparkstadion: Home of Hamburger SV and 4 CTMs
Trade Mark Owner
City, country
No. of CTMs
No. of RCDs
No. of IRs
Total
Madrid, Spain
22
0
2
24
Barcelona, Spain
21
0
14
35
Manchester, England, UK
28
0
8
36
Munich, Germany
7
5
6
18
London, England, UK
18
0
4
22
London, England, UK
38
1
11
50
Milan, Italy
20
0
14
34
Milan, Italy
12
0
5
17
Liverpool, England, UK
8
4
4
16
Gelsenkirchen, Germany
3
0
0
3
London, England, UK
22
5
3
30
Manchester, England, UK
3
1
0
4
Turin, Italy
11
0
5
16
Marseille, France
6
0
1
7
Rome, Italy
6
0
5
11
Dortmund, Germany
7
0
1
8
Lyon, France
5
0
3
8
Hamburg, Germany
4
1
5
10
Valencia, Spain
22
3
9
34
Naples, Italy
1
0
1
2
Madrid, Spain
2
0
1
3
Stuttgart, Germany
3
0
0
3
Birmingham, England, UK
7
1
0
8
Lisbon, Portugal
2
0
3
5
Bremen, Germany
2
0
4
6
Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK
3
0
0
3
Amsterdam, Netherlands
1
0
6
7
Liverpool, England, UK
1
0
0
1
London, England, UK
3
0
1
4
Sunderland, England, UK
2
0
0
2
Glasgow, Scotland, UK
7
0
3
10
Glasgow, Scotland, UK
3
1
2
6
Brussels, Belgium
6
0
0
6

Statistics are provided in good faith but may contain errors. There is some duplication between the figures of CTMs and IRs when the European Community has been designated in an International application. It may contain abandoned and lapsed cases. Representative check was very cursory - only the first CTM listed was checked. This post is really just a bit of fun.