Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The New European Union Trademark Regulation

By Ana Hadnes Bruder & Konstantin von Werder on April 7, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The EU Trademark Regulation (2015/2424/EU) amending the Community Trademark Regulation entered into force on 23 March 2016 (the “new Regulation”). The new Regulation is part of the EU trademark reform legislative package that also includes the replacement of the existing EU Trademarks Directive (2015/2436/EU). Some of the main changes brought about by the new rules are briefly outlined below.

Name Changes

In order to adapt the terminology to the Lisbon Treaty, Community Trademarks (CTM) are now called European Union Trademarks (EUTM), and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) has been re-named the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

New “One-Fee-per-Class” System for Applications

Until recently, the basic application fee covered up to three classes of goods or services. If the applicant wished to register the trademark in one class only, it still had to pay the basic fee. The new Regulation now introduced a new “one-class-per-fee” structure. Additional fees must be paid for each class beyond the first.

The basic fee for an electronic application covering up to three classes under the old rules amounted to EUR 900. The fee for each additional class was EUR 150. Under the new Regulation, the basic fee for one class is EUR 850. The fee for two classes corresponds to EUR 900, and for three classes, EUR 1,050. The fee for each subsequent class remains EUR 150.

These new fees also apply to the renewal of trademarks, which under the old rules amounted to EUR 1,350 up to three classes and EUR 400 for each subsequent class.

Opposition, cancellation and appeal fees have also been reduced.

New Scope of Protection for Class Heading Designations

It used to be common practice of trademark applicants to use class headings of the Nice Classification to designate the goods or services for which protection was sought. Class headings, in effect, were considered by the OHIM to protect all of the goods and services within a particular class (the so-called “class-heading-covers-all” approach).

A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dated 19 June 2012 changed this approach. The Court decided that an applicant using the general indications of a particular class heading must specify whether its application is intended to cover all of the goods or services included in the alphabetical list of the particular class, or only some of those goods or services (C-307/10, “IP Translator”, para. 61). This decision thus limited the “class heading-covers-all” approach to cases in which the applicant clearly expressed the intention to cover all of the goods or services in a particular class.

This principle has now been adopted by the new Regulation, according to which the use of class headings shall be interpreted as including only the goods or services clearly covered by the literal meaning of the indication or term used (Article 1(28) No. 5 of the new Regulation, amending Article 28 No. 5 of the Regulation 207/2009/EC).

This new rule entered into force on 23 March 2016. However, owners of trademarks applied for before 22 June 2012 that utilize the entire class heading of at least one Nice class are given the opportunity to declare to the EUIPO until 24 September 2016 that they would like to add further goods and services to their registration in order to conserve the originally intended scope of protection. This may compensate for the narrowing of scope otherwise caused by the new interpretative practice. If no such declaration is filed, the registration will only cover the goods and services that fall within the literal meaning of the terms used.

The potential amendments to the trademark register following trademark owners’ declarations might lead to disputes between such owners and undertakings having registered identical or similar signs at a later date for specific goods or services within the class. The solution of such cases is likely to depend to a great extent on the circumstances of each case.

Conclusion

The new rules will have a significant impact on EUTM owners and undertakings seeking to apply for trademark protection in the EU. Future blog entries will deal with some of the further changes accomplished by the new Regulation, concerning, for instance, anti-counterfeiting provisions of the new Regulation, and the possibility to protect as trademarks signs that are not capable of being represented graphically, such as, potentially, tastes or scents.

Photo of Ana Hadnes Bruder Ana Hadnes Bruder

Ana Hadnes Bruder is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Frankfurt office and an active member of the global Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practice. She is also a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property practice. Ana advises clients on data privacy and cybersecurity matters…

Ana Hadnes Bruder is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Frankfurt office and an active member of the global Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practice. She is also a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property practice. Ana advises clients on data privacy and cybersecurity matters, including preparing for and reacting to cyber-attacks, assessing and making required data breach notifications, analyzing data protection implications of new products and tools and providing strategic advice with a focus on cross-border data processing. Ana further advises on Technology Transactions including cloud services, data and software licensing agreements, SaaS agreements, software development projects, e-commerce, and related Cybersecurity & Data Privacy questions.

Ana is a registered lawyer in Germany and Brazil and has ten years of international experience as legal counsel in Brazil, France and Germany. Ana started her career at Mayer Brown in the Dispute Resolution practice where she represented clients in litigation and arbitration proceedings involving complex commercial, intellectual property and liability matters.

Before joining Mayer Brown, Ana gained experience representing foreign clients in judicial proceedings in Brazil and also worked as in-house counsel for a leading French company in Paris.

Read full bio

Read more about Ana Hadnes BruderEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Konstantin von Werder Konstantin von Werder

Konstantin von Werder is a counsel in the Intellectual Property practice of Mayer Brown´s Frankfurt office. He focuses on trademark and unfair competition law (UWG). He has extensive experience and expertise as a litigator and advises clients in legal disputes (warning letters, preliminary…

Konstantin von Werder is a counsel in the Intellectual Property practice of Mayer Brown´s Frankfurt office. He focuses on trademark and unfair competition law (UWG). He has extensive experience and expertise as a litigator and advises clients in legal disputes (warning letters, preliminary injunctions, actions on the merits). Konstantin also coordinates the infringement proceedings for his clients abroad. Furthermore, he advises national and international clients on patent, design and copyright law. Moreover, he has particular expertise and experience in drafting complex license and distribution agreements and in providing advice on research and development agreements. His clients include companies in the pharmaceuticals and automotive industry as well as in the hotel, catering and consumer goods sector.

Konstantin’s full bio.

Read more about Konstantin von WerderEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    All About IP
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo