IP Summit: European trademark reform
A panel of industry experts discussed the proposals for European trademark reform at the PanEuropean IP Summit on Wednesday.
Chairing the roundtable, Julien Scicluna, trademark and design attorney at Laurent & Charras, said that although there has been some harmonisation of trademark law across Europe in the last 20 years, more is needed at a national level.
Coexistence of trademark systems at a national and Union level is a “cornerstone” of the EU’s approach to IP protection, he said.
Earlier this year the European Commission released a package of proposals for trademark reform in the EU.
Diana Versteeg, chairman at MARQUES, said the reform’s objective is to further foster innovation and economic growth for “an IPR-intensive union of countries”, while increasing legal certainty. Small- to medium-sized entities (SMEs) are becoming more international, so it is necessary to clarify the provisions of the statute and remove any ambiguities, she said.
She added that it was also important for users of the European trademark system to cooperate and “find common ground wherever possible.”
Versteeg supports the codifying of the IP Translator decision, which clarifies how to classify goods and services, into EU trademark law.
On the subject of fees, Versteeg said that Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market is doing an efficient job, as “more money is coming out than going in”, though strongly opposes the proposal that any “significant surplus” be returned to the EU. It must be defined what is “significant”, she said.
Furthermore, she added, the money should be used for other IP-related projects like studies. It should not go to the EU “because who knows where it will go?” she said.
A vote on how to proceed on the reform is due in April, though a member of the audience suggested it be delayed.
Versteeg said that if we don’t act now, we’ll reach a stalemate.
“I hope that we’ll come up with [new] proposals sooner rather than later,” she said. “It is better to compromise than have a freeze situation where we go back to square one.”
