OpenLobby.EU
Explore

International Trademark Association

INTA

The International Trademark Association is a global body of brand owners and IP professionals supporting trademarks and intellectual property to foster consumer trust and innovation.

Lobbying Activity

INTA urges EU budget to leverage IP for SME competitiveness

20 Oct 2025
Topic — The European Commission is designing the post-2027 EU budget to prioritize competitiveness.
Message — INTA recommends the Commission articulates how public procurement supports SMEs. They propose leveraging intellectual property as assets to help small businesses scale. Finally, they suggest using annual performance indicators to measure results.123
Why — This strategy highlights the financial value of IP and simplifies access to capital.4
Impact — Critics of intellectual property rights could see their influence diminished by these proposals.5
Read full response

Meeting with Stephane Mail Fouilleul (Head of Unit Taxation and Customs Union) and AIM - European Brands Association and

17 Oct 2025 · 12th Joint meeting of customs and right holders on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights

Response to European Innovation Act

3 Oct 2025

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation, you can find our position paper attached and in our website (https://www.inta.org/advocacy/).
Read full response

INTA urges lower employee threshold for GDPR record-keeping exemptions

25 Aug 2025
Topic — A proposal to simplify reporting requirements for small mid-cap enterprises across various sectors.
Message — The association recommends lowering the proposed exemption threshold to 500 employees instead of 750. They request clearer definitions for high risk processing to avoid unnecessary, costly assessments.12
Why — Moderate exemptions would reduce compliance costs for mid-sized members while preserving essential consumer trust.34
Impact — Consumers and employees face potential impairments to their rights if oversight of data processing is reduced.56
Read full response

Response to Proposal for a new Regulation on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

31 Jul 2025

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation, you can find our position paper attached.
Read full response

Response to EU Design Implementing Regulation

29 Jul 2025

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation, you can find our position paper attached and in our website (https://www.inta.org/advocacy/)
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Google and

6 May 2025 · Copyright and generative AI

Meeting with Dimitris Tsiodras (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Apr 2025 · Combatting counterfeiting and enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights

Meeting with Dóra Dávid (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Apr 2025 · Challenges of IP in the digital/online space and its role in European Competitiveness

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

23 Apr 2025 · EU customs legislation, counterfeit goods

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

22 Apr 2025 · Exchange of views on the future role of IP within the EU

Meeting with Maria Martin-Prat (Deputy Director-General Trade)

22 Apr 2025 · INTA informed TRADE about the preparation of their new Strategic Plan for the period 2026-2029 (Trade marks and other (IPRs) and in particular patents). TRADE informed about aspects of IPR; EC’s current FTA negotiations & FTA implementation.

Meeting with Laura Ballarín Cereza (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Mar 2025 · Africa, Deveopment, Intellectual Property

Response to EU Start-up and Scale-up Strategy

17 Mar 2025

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation, you can find our position paper attached and in our website (https://www.inta.org/advocacy/)
Read full response

Response to Savings and Investments Union

4 Mar 2025

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation, you can find our position paper attached and in our website (https://www.inta.org/advocacy/)
Read full response

Meeting with Kirsi Haavisto (Head of Unit Research and Innovation)

10 Feb 2025 · Knowledge valorisation and intellectual property management

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

5 Feb 2025 · EU customs legislation, e-commerce

INTA urges EU to prioritize intellectual property in single market

31 Jan 2025
Topic — The European Commission is updating its strategy for the EU single market.
Message — INTA urges the EU to link the single market to innovation. They want intellectual property treated as a financial asset. They also seek guidance on privacy laws to improve enforcement.123
Why — Valuation and protection of intangible assets help companies secure funding and recover lost revenue.45
Impact — Criminal organizations lose profits as stricter enforcement and data sharing disrupt the counterfeit goods trade.6
Read full response

Meeting with Jeannette Baljeu (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and CLECAT - European association for forwarding, transport, logistic and Customs services

29 Jan 2025 · Customs Union

Meeting with Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Dec 2024 · Significance of IP rights

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Oct 2024 · Intellectual property

Response to Report on the first review of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework

6 Sept 2024

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation to the "EU-US Data Privacy Framework: report of the Commission on how the framework is functioning". You can find our suggestions in the attached PDF Position Paper.
Read full response

Response to Regulation on the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Evaluation

24 Jun 2024

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its Call for Evidence to the Evaluation to the Regulation on the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Our detailed comments can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Union Customs Code

7 Nov 2023

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide comments on the reform of the Union Customs legislation. INTA previously provided feedback in this file on the public consultation. In the attached document you can find more specific comments on the Commission's proposal, with a focus on the defense of intellectual property rights and consumers.
Read full response

Response to Virtual worlds, such as metaverse

3 May 2023

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide comments on the initiative An EU initiative on virtual worlds: a head start towards the next technological transition. Our detailed comments can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Community Designs Regulation

31 Jan 2023

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a global association of brand owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks and related intellectual property (IP) to foster consumer trust, economic growth, and innovation. Members include nearly 6,500 organizations, representing more than 34,350 individuals (trademark owners, professionals, and academics) from 185 countries, who benefit from the Associations global trademark resources, policy development, education and training, and international network. Founded in 1878, INTA is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Singapore, and Washington, D.C., and a representative in New Delhi. For more information, visit inta.org. INTA is one of the current three signatories of the submitted joint contribution on the Commissions Public Consultation on European Commissions proposal of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast), and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002, as well as the Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs (Implementing Regulation). Considering the timeframe to submit input to this consultation, ECTA, INTA and MARQUES submit this contribution jointly following previous joint or coordinated submissions to the European Commission, on the EU Designs Review. This is without prejudice to other user associations, representing the same or different stakeholders, coming to support all or some of the positions and recommendations expressed in the attached joint paper. This contribution builds on the recommendations provided to the Commission over the past four years, in particular the Joint Paper on the Inception Assessment, submitted by the same signatories ECTA, INTA and MARQUES in January 2021. As noted, INTA further looks forward to having the opportunity to provide its further contribution and any more in-depth analysis on the Commissions legislative proposals in due course.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Designs Directive

31 Jan 2023

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a global association of brand owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks and related intellectual property (IP) to foster consumer trust, economic growth, and innovation. Members include nearly 6,500 organizations, representing more than 34,350 individuals (trademark owners, professionals, and academics) from 185 countries, who benefit from the Associations global trademark resources, policy development, education and training, and international network. Founded in 1878, INTA is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Singapore, and Washington, D.C., and a representative in New Delhi. For more information, visit inta.org. INTA is one of the current three signatories of the submitted joint contribution on the Commissions Public Consultation on European Commissions proposal of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast), and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002, as well as the Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs (Implementing Regulation). Considering the timeframe to submit input to this consultation, ECTA, INTA and MARQUES submit this contribution jointly following previous joint or coordinated submissions to the European Commission, on the EU Designs Review. This is without prejudice to other user associations, representing the same or different stakeholders, coming to support all or some of the positions and recommendations expressed in the attached joint paper. This contribution builds on the recommendations provided to the Commission over the past four years, in particular the Joint Paper on the Inception Assessment, submitted by the same signatories ECTA, INTA and MARQUES in January 2021. As noted, INTA further looks forward to having the opportunity to provide its further contribution and any more in-depth analysis on the Commissions legislative proposals in due course.
Read full response

Response to Community Design registration

31 Jan 2023

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a global association of brand owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks and related intellectual property (IP) to foster consumer trust, economic growth, and innovation. Members include nearly 6,500 organizations, representing more than 34,350 individuals (trademark owners, professionals, and academics) from 185 countries, who benefit from the Associations global trademark resources, policy development, education and training, and international network. Founded in 1878, INTA is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Singapore, and Washington, D.C., and a representative in New Delhi. For more information, visit inta.org. INTA is one of the current three signatories of the submitted joint contribution on the Commissions Public Consultation on European Commissions proposal of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of designs (recast), and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002, as well as the Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs (Implementing Regulation). Considering the timeframe to submit input to this consultation, ECTA, INTA and MARQUES submit this contribution jointly following previous joint or coordinated submissions to the European Commission, on the EU Designs Review. This is without prejudice to other user associations, representing the same or different stakeholders, coming to support all or some of the positions and recommendations expressed in the attached joint paper. This contribution builds on the recommendations provided to the Commission over the past four years, in particular the Joint Paper on the Inception Assessment, submitted by the same signatories ECTA, INTA and MARQUES in January 2021. As noted, INTA further looks forward to having the opportunity to provide its further contribution and any more in-depth analysis on the Commissions legislative proposals in due course.
Read full response

Response to Periodic evaluation of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark

5 Dec 2022

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its Call for Evidence to the Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark. Our detailed comments can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Trademark group INTA urges harmonized EU customs to stop counterfeits

13 Sept 2022
Topic — The European Commission is revising customs laws to modernize border controls.
Message — INTA supports harmonizing data and creating interoperable databases to track counterfeit items. They also propose national coordination centers and stricter monitoring of small e-commerce parcels.123
Why — Brand owners would benefit from reduced administrative burdens and stronger border enforcement.4
Impact — Counterfeiters would lose their anonymity and the ease of shipping illegal goods.5
Read full response

Meeting with Álvaro Amaro (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

13 Jul 2022 · A reforma das Indicações Geográficas - Proteção intelectual

Meeting with Stéphane Séjourné (Member of the European Parliament)

12 Jul 2022 · Propriété intellectuelle (équipe)

Response to Geographical indication protection at EU level for non-agricultural products

11 Jul 2022

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation to the proposal for regulation on geographical indication protection for craft and industrial products, amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1001 and (EU) 2019/1753 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 (“Non-Agricultural Proposal”). Our detailed comments can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the EU geographical indications(GI) systems in agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines and spirit drinks

24 Jun 2022

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation to the “EU proposal for regulation on geographical indications for wines, spirit drinks, and agricultural products, and quality schemes for agricultural products”. Our detailed comments can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Fight against counterfeiting

2 Mar 2022

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission (EC) for the opportunity to provide comments on the EU Toolbox against counterfeiting (EU Toolbox). INTA applauds this initiative to set out principles for coherent joint action, cooperation, and a balanced approach toward data sharing among right holders, intermediaries, and law enforcement authorities. Our detailed comments can be found in the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Review of the general product safety directive

1 Oct 2021

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its consultation to the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD). INTA previously provided feedback on the inclusion of counterfeit goods in the GPSD in October 2020, here. INTA recognizes the fact that the Commission has declined to include counterfeit goods in the GPSD and would like to respectfully reiterate reasons why the exclusion of counterfeit goods in the GPSD will be detrimental to the health and safety of European citizens in the enclosed document.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the NIS Directive

17 Mar 2021

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is pleased to provide the following comments and suggestions to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union, repealing Directive (EU) 2016/1148 or (hereafter “NIS2 Directive”). INTA welcomes the NIS2 Directive’s objectives to address the harms caused by cybersecurity threats and attacks, whose nature and frequency are on the rise, by an assortment of bad actors with sophisticated techniques. The two areas of deep concern for INTA members are: 1) The importance of recognizing the existing link between intellectual property rights (IPRs) infringements and cyberattacks, which is missing from the current scope of this proposal on one hand; and 2) Providing for verified, accurate and accessible domain name registration data to investigate and thwart those attacks, on the other hand. INTA appreciates the EU’s proposed response regarding the duties of entities that provide domain name registration services to collect, maintain and provide access to registration data. We believe that this will be a welcome clarification to the many stakeholders who rely on such information. In addition, INTA suggests that the proposal require the publication of a verified email address for the domain name registrant. This solution would serve the urgent need for immediate access to such data to stop cybersecurity attacks of all kinds as well as other dangerous online illegal activity. INTA’s proposals would limit the public accessibility of domain name registration data that may constitute personal data to a single data element which satisfies the proportionality and balance established in Union data protection law. Attached, please find a pdf document that further explains our position on the two issues highlighted, as well as suggestions for amendments to the draft NIS2 proposal in that regard.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Community Designs Regulation

12 Jan 2021

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a global association of brand owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks and related intellectual property (IP) to foster consumer trust, economic growth, and innovation. Members include nearly 6,500 organizations, representing more than 34,350 individuals (trademark owners, professionals, and academics) from 185 countries, who benefit from the Association’s global trademark resources, policy development, education and training, and international network. Founded in 1878, INTA is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Singapore, and Washington, D.C., and a representative in New Delhi. For more information, visit inta.org. INTA is one of the current three signatories of the submitted joint contribution on the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment on the review of the Design Directive (the Directive) and Community Design Regulation (the Regulation), together with ECTA and MARQUES. Considering the timeframe to submit input to this consultation, ECTA, INTA and MARQUES submit this contribution jointly following previous joint or coordinated submissions to the European Commission, on the EU Designs Review. This is without prejudice to other user associations, representing the same or different stakeholders, coming to support all or some of the positions and recommendations expressed in the attached joint paper. The comments as submitted follow the structure of the Inception Impact Assessment, notably the tentative set of specific objectives and associated solutions/options proposed by the European Commission to frame the reform of European Union (EU) legislation on design protection. This contribution builds on the recommendations provided to the Commission over the past two years, in particular the Joint Paper on Legal Review of EU Designs System, submitted by the same signatories ECTA, INTA and MARQUES in July 2018. As noted, INTA further looks forward to having the opportunity to provide its further contribution and any more in-depth analysis on the Commission’s legislative proposals in due course.
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

13 Aug 2020

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its Roadmap on the ‘Intellectual Property Action Plan’. INTA would like to make several suggestions along the lines of the Roadmap’s structure (section I), and raise some additional issues not expressly covered by the Roadmap but worth considering (section II). You can find the details of our suggestions in the attached document. About INTA. The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a global association of brand owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks and related intellectual property (IP) to foster consumer trust, economic growth, and innovation. Members include nearly 6,500 organizations, representing more than 34,350 individuals (trademark owners, professionals, and academics) from 185 countries, who benefit from the Association’s global trademark resources, policy development, education and training, and international network. Founded in 1878, INTA is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Singapore, and Washington, D.C., and a representative in New Delhi. For more information, visit inta.org. INTA would be pleased to answer any questions that the Commission may have and is available to discuss our recommendations in more detail. Please contact INTA Chief Representative Officer-Europe, Hélène Nicora at hnicora@inta.org or INTA Policy Officer –Europe, Hadrien Valembois, at hvalembois@inta.org.
Read full response

Response to A New Consumer Agenda

30 Jul 2020

The International Trademark Association (INTA) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its Roadmap on ‘A New Consumer Agenda’. You can find our extensive submission as an attached PDF file (in order to accommodate the hyperlinks) INTA would be pleased to answer any questions that the Commission may have and is available to discuss our recommendations in more detail. Please contact INTA Anticounterfeiting Manager, Maysa Razavi at mrazavi@inta.org or +1-212-642-1779 or INTA Policy Officer –Europe, Hadrien Valembois, at hvalembois@inta.org or +32-2-880-3720.
Read full response

Meeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner)

6 Jul 2020 · Trade Policy Review.

Meeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner)

28 May 2020 · Trade Issues

Meeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner)

19 May 2020 · Trade Marks.

Response to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation

29 Apr 2020

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is pleased to contribute to the roadmap on this topic. INTA focuses its input on the issue of international transfers of personal data to non-EU countries. In particular, INTA respectfully requests that the European Commission include in the Roadmap an analysis of the impact of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on the flow of information related to registration data for domain names. The rationale for this suggestion is presented in the attached correspondence. Thank you for your consideration of INTA’s comments. If you have any further questions or comments regarding this submission, please contact Hélène Nicora, Chief Representative, Europe at hnicora@inta.org or Lori Schulman, Senior Director, Internet Policy at lschulman@inta.org.
Read full response

Meeting with Phil Hogan (Commissioner)

21 Apr 2020 · Trade Matters

Response to European Union trade mark

7 Nov 2016

The International Trademark Association (INTA) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Commission Delegated Regulation. Our complete comments are available on request at hnicora@inta.org. We believe that some provisions in the Draft text should be clarified or added in order to simplify procedures and increase legal certainty for trademark users. Below are a few examples of our comments which serve these objectives: (A) Rules relating to translation should be more flexible. • Articles 3 and 13(2) should be deleted. It is unclear why the notice of opposition/cancellation application must be translated if the parties, after filing them, agree on a different language. • Circumstances under which translations could be required should also be clarified in Article 10(6). (B) Some time limits/periods should be better defined. • Cancellation applicants shall present facts, evidence and arguments together with the application or within a time limit, and not up to the closure of the adversarial part. • Article 17 should be amended, the proprietor should not be required to submit defensive observations if the cancellation applicant has not yet submitted facts, evidence and arguments. • The Board of Appeals should also set a much stricter time-frame for its duties in Article 23. • The period within which an applicant shall respond to an opposition should be clarified to be 2 months in Article 8. • Also, in Article 26, the time limit for requesting leave to file a reply should be extended to 1 month and the time limit for the submission of reply and response to 2 months each, to ease the burden on parties. • Previous rules of Implementing Regulation 2868 on public notification by public notice should also be reintroduced in Article 59. • The current wording of Article 67(1) on calculation of duration and time limits is misleading; Article 69 should only apply if the start of a time limit depends on the expiry of another time limit. • It is suggested to clarify in Article 78(3) that the notification of provisional refusal against an international registration shall contain information on the opposition procedure, including on the relevant time limits. (C) Some requirements should be simplified. • We question the formalism of Articles 21(1)(a), 24(2) and 25(3) as the name of the defendant should be sufficient. • The mechanism for responding to a cross appeal should be no different from that for responding to an appeal. • We also question the rationale of requesting a separate document for a request for proof of use (Articles 10 and 19) and a restriction of the application (Article 8). (D) Several amendments are necessary to increase legal certainty and bring clarity to trademark users. • We suggest introducing new provisions to ensure that Parties to proceedings before the Offices should show their active interest in the proceedings. • We suggest amending Article 2 to mention the representation of the sign in paragraph 2(b)(i), to refer to Article 8(5) and to clarify paragraph 2(d) and (f). • The list of means by which genuine use can be proven in Article 10(4) should be non-exhaustive. • Articles 10(7)(a), 8(5)(a) and 27(4)(b) should be deleted since the Office should not take into account evidence which is irrelevant to the outcome of the case, belated or not. • Also, Article 37 is too vague; rules relating to referral of cases to the Gran Board should be more transparent. • We consider that if the composition of the Board of Appeal is changed after oral proceedings, fresh oral proceedings should always be held at the request of any party in Article 38. • The wording of Article 79 is confusing; the statement of grant of protection shall rather have the same effect as the withdrawal of a refusal. We remain at your disposal to exchange further on these comments or on our detailed comments. Thank you.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the European Union trade mark Regulation (2nd part)

1 Nov 2016

The International Trademark Association (INTA) thanks the Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Implementing Regulation. INTA has done a thorough analysis of the Draft text and is keen to share its complete recommendations upon request (at hnicora@inta.org). Below are a few examples of INTA's recommendations: • Art. 3(1): The wording “The filing of a sample or a specimen shall not constitute a proper representation of the trade mark” should be deleted as it is unfairly restrictive. There is no proper basis in the Amending Regulation for refusing to accept a sample or a specimen where the same can be represented on the Register in such a way that the clear and precise subject matter of the protection may be determined, using available technology and in accordance with the Sieckmann criteria, in line with Article 4 and Recital 9 of Regulation 2015/2424. • Art. 3(2): has the effect of introducing an additional formal requirement by the back door for the Applicant to indicate the 'type' of mark applied for, in addition to supplying a 'representation' of the mark applied for, without any basis to do so in Regulation 2015/2424. This forms the basis of the rigid schema set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, which requires certain types of representation for certain 'types' of mark. Furthermore, if descriptions are acceptable at all then there does not seem to be any basis in Regulation (EC) No 2015/2424 for allowing them for some marks and not for others. Requiring the applicant to indicate the “type” of mark applied fails to reflect actual complexities and may also undercut the rights of an applicant in certain situations, for example for a representation consisting of a 3D image of goods or packaging to which a combination of colors has been applied. • Art. 3(3)(f): unduly restricts the ability to register color combinations per se as a trade mark. The reference to color “per se” in the first sentence together with the last sentence should be deleted. There is a contradiction in Article 3(f)(ii) between the concept of “color combination” marks per se and the need for a mandatory description indicating the systematic arrangement of the colors in a uniform and predetermined manner. Art 3(3(f) prevents the mark from being a color combination per se, and present the mark as a pattern or device mark, albeit in color. • Art. 3(3)(g): multi-media evidence as a representation of trade mark is welcome but additional flexibility is needed to allow the representation with a sonogram/spectrogram . • Art 4 and 6: Copies of the priority application/ relevant registration should only be required where the office is not able to verify the data through online resources, and a period of time can be allowed for the office to request such additional documentation, either a copy of the earlier application/relevant registration or a translation thereof. • Art 12: A new paragraph should be added. “2. EUTM owners and registered representatives may proceed with the amendment of the holder’s name and address through EUIPO’s online platform. Once the change of name or address has been entered, such modification will be recorded for all the files concerning the same holder. The Office will confirm to the party having requested the change online that the amendment has been entered on the EUIPO’s Register.” • Art 14: should provide for applications for partial transfer of applications as well as registrations. • Art 32: should also provide for the notification to the International Bureau of the entry in the EUIPO Register, pursuant to Article 157 of the Council Regulation, of a notice under Article 4bis of the Madrid Protocol. • Art 33(2): We suggest adding provisions to give effect to Rules 18ter (1) and (4) of the Regulations under the Madrid Protocol. We hope these examples are useful and remain at your full disposal to provide our complete recommendations and answer any questions. Thank you.
Read full response

Meeting with Daniel Calleja Crespo (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

13 Apr 2015 · TRADEMARK PACKAGE