Whiff of TM reform for EU, as Council views anti-counterfeiting role for OHIM, local offices

The air of Europe is redolent with the heady scent of amendment to European trade mark law, says the IPKat. This is not just a matter of prophecy, but rather the dropping of a heavy hint by the Council of the European Union -- the Council conclusions of 25 May 2010 on the future revision of the Trade Mark system in the European Union (2010/C 140/07) have just been published on the online version of the Official Journal of the European Union on Saturday 29 May.

In this heart-warming document in which it notes various heads of progress, the Council calls on the Commission to present proposals for the revision of those recently-enacted consolidations and re-enactments, Council Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, and Directive 2008/95/EC approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. Says this document
"The revision should include in particular:
— the introduction of a specific provision to define the framework for cooperation between the OHIM and the National Offices, making explicit that harmonization of practice and tools is an aim which all trade mark offices in the EU should pursue [Do rules of law regarding genuine use constitute "practice and tools"? If so, it's a pity the document doesn't get a bit more specific] and that efforts in this area should be supported and facilitated by the OHIM with the active involvement of its Administrative Board [a cynic might say that some national offices need more than a uniform approach -- perhaps a straitjacket?],
— the establishment of a clear legal basis for the involvement of the OHIM in enforcement-related activities, including the fight against counterfeiting, in particular through fostering its cooperation with the National Offices, in accordance with their national competences, and the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy [What will this mean? The establishment of yet more databases? More travel and dinners? Or is there something particular that the Council has in mind? This Kat would like to see OHIM and the National Offices focus on their current role, but with more resources and meaningful practical cooperation for the various enforcement agencies],
— the creation of a legal basis for distributing an amount equivalent to 50% of OHIM's renewal fees to the National Offices in accordance with fair, equitable and relevant distribution criteria [fair and equitable? Now, there's a challenge ...], to be defined in a way which would guarantee, inter alia, a minimum amount for each Member State, as well as the introduction of appropriate mechanisms which have due regard to the financial arrangements applicable to individual National Offices, to ensure that these funds will be available to the National Offices and will be used for purposes closely related to the protection, promotion and/or enforcement of trade marks, including combating counterfeiting,
— amendments and other measures, where appropriate, aimed at supporting the complementary relationship between the Community and national trade mark systems,
— measures to make Directive 2008/95 ... to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ... more consistent with Council Regulation ... 207/2009 ... on the Community trade mark ... and thus to further contribute to reducing areas of divergence within the trade mark system in Europe as a whole [Divergence per se isn't the problem, so much as the difficulties faced by businesses in having to make allowances for them. Handled correctly, this suggestion should be warmly welcomed]".
The IPKat wonders whether the Council and its advisers really understand how the trade mark system works nationally and across the European Union as a whole, and what they expect from the diligent administrators and blameless legal scholars who populate the continent's rights-granting organisations.
Whiff of TM reform for EU, as Council views anti-counterfeiting role for OHIM, local offices Whiff of TM reform for EU, as Council views anti-counterfeiting role for OHIM, local offices Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, June 01, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. The big question is: as the Council forges ahead with these plans without consultation, what was the point of the Max Planck study into the functionality of the European trademark system(s)?


    Adam Smith

  2. Interesting news from the Council of the European Union. I probably would not understand well the views of the Council of the European Union but what is the general goal.
    Greater harmonization, sounds good, more money fornational agencies, OK but what is the purpose.
    If the aim is to create a stronger community system forthe protection of marks, these proposals are insufficient. It is purposefulwork by which to establish a comprehensive legal framework relating to trade marks in Europe. Indeed, there are currently Directives and Regulations butthere are still many issues to be settled.
    Moreover, the system for registration of Community trade marks must become more flexible and lightweight.

  3. The real purpose of the resolution is probably to give political cover to the idea of diverting 50% of the OHIM renewal income to national offices. With users and common sense against this idea, the Commission may have problems in getting it through the legislative machinery, without a clear direction from the Council.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.