Former Guest Kat, Darren Meale, of Simmons & Simmons, London, continues to share his thoughts about Article 28 declarations. Over from one Darren to another...
Like this
and this,
this one is about Article 28 declarations. Those are the declarations you have
until September 2016 to file to ensure your pre-22 June 2012 EUTMs cover all
the goods and services you think they cover.
We are now halfway through the six month period the EUIPO has
granted trade mark owners to file Article 28 declarations.
In that time, the EUIPO has made a few public statements on
how these are going, and I have my own experience from filing a significant number
of them. So here are a few pearls of wisdom, and a few of frustration, to help
you along with your portfolio reviews and your declarations:
1.
More relevant to you than you think. It
is surprising how some portfolio owners assume their portfolios will not be
eligible for or benefit from Article 28 declarations. Experience tells me there
are many more EUTMs with specifications covering entire class headings than
their owners think. Remember that your registration only has to cover
the class heading, it doesn’t have to have the exact wording.
2.
Plenty of declarations to come? The EUIPO
has undoubtedly (optimistically) underestimated the number too. It reported in
its April Alicante
News newsletter than around 300 declarations had been filed in the first
month, reflecting, in its view, that “affected
trade mark owners have essentially understood that declarations should only be
considered when there is a real interest in filing one”. In my view, the
reality is that while some very well prepared EUTM owners will have filed once
the window opened in March, most still have it on their to do list for the
summer. We have recently filed more than 120 declarations for just one (major)
portfolio owner. We also know, based on analysis we have conducted using
software we have developed to automate Article 28 declarations, that there are
a significant number of EUTM owners who can (if they wish) file declarations at
this order of magnitude. World Wrestling Entertainment, for example, could file
up to 285 declarations. El Corte Ingles, the largest department store group in
Europe, could file up to 379. Intesa Sanpaolo, the Italian banking group, could
file up to a massive 425.
3.
What declarants are getting wrong. Those
who have filed declarations early on have frequently made mistakes, according
to the EUIPO. Most of those mistakes arise from not reading the EUIPO’s
guidance and a failure to understand exactly what Article 28 declarations are
and what they are for. Here are the top mistakes according to the Office:
a.
Declarations containing long lists of terms
clearly covered by the literal meaning of the relevant class heading. The EUIPO
was very clear it would not accept these – it will only accept terms not clearly covered already. It has
already published a list of “orphan” goods and services which it will accept.
If a term is not in that list, you can still file a declaration, but be
prepared to argue for it as and when the EUIPO issues a deficiency notice.
b.
Declarations for goods and services not
contained in the Nice classification alphabetical list in force at the time of
filing. The Nice classification has changed over time – make sure you are using
the right one, or you’ll get a rejection.
4.
Unhelpful online form. The EUIPO is not
making life easy for us all. Its online form, which it encourages us all to
use, only allows a declaration for one mark at a time, which is a slow and
tedious way of dealing with a large portfolio. The form is not mandatory.
5.
Too much paper. To make matters worse,
even if declarations are filed together in a batch – because they all relate to
one EUTM owner – the EUIPO is dealing with them all individually. So individual
recordal numbers, potentially multiple examiners, individual acknowledgement
letters, individual deficiency notices, individual acceptances, and so on. So
if you file 100 declarations, you’ll be getting 100s of pieces of paper back.
This is not how things are done for other recordals. Thanks EUIPO!
6.
Are you authorised? The EUIPO has refused
to accept declarations where the filer is not the representative on file. It is
often the case that EUTM owners manage their own portfolios, but instruct
external counsel to correspond with the EUIPO on particular issues. This
additional red tape simply adds time and cost to the whole exercise. The EUIPO
tells us it is requiring this because of “the
risks of our users being targeted by companies employing the sharp practice of
filing declarations without their consent or authorisation in an attempt to
charge for unsolicited services”. Different examiners are taking different
approaches. Some require a power of attorney, some require a letter of
authorisation, some require nothing. So be warned!
7.
Once a declaration is accepted. In
future, it is not going to be easy to see whether or not a declaration has been
filed for a particular EUTM and what was in the declaration, at least not until
the EUIPO makes some updates to its database software. If you take a look at this
example, which is one of the early declarations which has now been recorded,
although there is a notice in the “Publications” and “Recordals” section of the
EUTM’s entry, to see what’s gone on you have to log in to the EUIPO website. You
can then download the EUIPO’s letter confirming recordal of the Article 28
declaration, which only shows what the entire
specification looks like now. If you
want to see what has actually been declared, you will have to download the TM
owner’s own declaration.
Three months to go – so plenty more time – but don’t forget!
EU Trade Mark Owners: Article 28 declarations – have you filed yours yet?
Reviewed by Darren Smyth
on
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Rating:
No comments:
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