New
EUIPO
Guidelines.
New
EUIPO
Guidelines.
of
The EUIPO has updated its examination guidelines. What will change for applicants of EU trademarks and EU designs as of July 1, 2026?
Update to the Examination Guidelines
On July 1, 2026, the new edition of the Examination Guidelines of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO ) entered into force. The Guidelines serve as internal working instructions that examiners and the Boards of Appeal at EUIPO use as a guide. In practice, they are therefore almost as important as the legal provisions themselves, as they illustrate how the Office actually applies them. The current version is unusually comprehensive and covers both trademark and design proceedings.
Geographical Indications: The Biggest Change
The focus of the revision to the trademark law section is on the treatment of geographic indications such as “Champagne” or similar protected designations of origin. This was prompted by the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of NERO CHAMPAGNE v. Champagne.
The court ruled that ex officio examination no longer need be limited to identical or similar goods. The Office has adjusted its practice accordingly: In the future, an objection may also be raised if an application would exploit, dilute, or impair the reputation of a geographical indication, regardless of the goods for which it is to be registered, provided that the Office has relevant information available either on its own initiative or through third parties. Anyone wishing to resolve such an objection by limiting the list of goods should be aware that, under the new practice, this option now only establishes a rebuttable presumption and does not apply in every case. In particular, it does not help if the protected indication is alluded to in connection with any goods, or if the product of origin itself appears only as an ingredient in a processed product; so a “champagne” flavor in a shower gel would still be problematic, even if the shower gel itself has nothing to do with champagne.
However, there is some relief for collective trademarks that include a product-specific logo associated with a geographical indication. In the future, such trademarks would no longer be automatically rejected on the grounds that the public perceives them solely as a geographical indication and not as a collective trademark.
Impact on Appeal Proceedings
The Office’s new role regarding geographical indications also affects opposition proceedings. In the future, it should be easier for those invoking a geographical indication to provide evidence, as the Office will take relevant registry entries into account ex officio. Furthermore, the PriSecco v. Prosecco decision has been incorporated into the assessment of allusion and imitation.
In addition, there are a number of procedural clarifications that go beyond geographical indications. If an opposition is based on an earlier law that is not suitable for this type of opposition from the outset, the opposition will now be rejected as inadmissible rather than as unfounded, which brings the proceedings to a closer earlier. Second and subsequent requests for an extension of time no longer need to be supported by evidence, but a justification based on exceptional circumstances remains required. If proceedings have been suspended for six months at the joint request of both parties, a subsequent joint extension will in the future be automatically granted for eighteen months, up to a total duration of two years.
There are also new developments regarding the comparison of marks itself. Upper- and lowercase letters will no longer play a role in the similarity assessment of word marks; two word marks that differ only in spelling will therefore be considered identical. Individual letters that are not stylized, or only slightly stylized, are inherently considered to have only weak distinctiveness. Regarding the question of when a “legitimate reason” justifies taking advantage of the reputation of a well-known trademark, the decision in pasta ZARA Sublime v. ZARA was taken into account.
Deletion and Registry
In the future, a new ground for inadmissibility will apply to applications for revocation due to nonuse if the application is filed in bad faith. This is based on the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in the Sandra Pabst case.
An earlier date of expiration may also be requested without the need to demonstrate a legitimate interest. Furthermore, in the case of the conversion of a trademark that has expired due to nonuse, a new practice has been introduced for situations where actual use is claimed under the law of a Member State.
Designs: clearer layout, new categories
There have also been some changes in design law . Anyone filing a design application must submit a sufficiently clear representation at the time of filing; this is now a genuine prerequisite for establishing the filing date and is no longer merely a formality that can be corrected later. A new distinction is now made between static, animated, and dynamic representations, which is particularly relevant for screen interfaces and animated icons. Another new development is a ground for rejection of applications that use state symbols such as flags or coats of arms, explicitly including cases where the EU expands to include new member states. In the event of objections regarding product specifications, the Office will in the future propose amendments itself and await a response, unless the applicant has expressly opted for an ex officio amendment at the time of filing.
The section on invalidity proceedings for designs has been fundamentally restructured and now explains in greater detail how prior laws and foreign law can be substantiated, including through online sources. Another new feature is the option to treat such proceedings as a priority, although the Office itself acknowledges that this provision is still in its early stages and that practice will only develop over time.
Electronic Only
From a procedural standpoint, the new version significantly tightens the rules for design proceedings: Starting July 1, 2026, submissions to the Office may only be filed electronically. Mail or courier shipments will be deemed not received; while the sender will be notified, the documents will be destroyed after thirty days unless the sender requests their return. Data storage media will also no longer be accepted. At least, it is now possible to continue proceedings after a deadline has been missed in design proceedings as well, and the requirement to submit supporting evidence generally no longer applies to requests for deadline extensions.
Practical Tips
Applicants for trademarks that could potentially infringe on protected geographical indications—for example, as a flavoring agent, ingredient, or part of a name—should carefully review the selection of goods before filing an application, as merely limiting the list of goods no longer guarantees that an objection will be dismissed.
Conclusion
The revised version noticeably shifts the examination practice regarding geographical indications toward stronger protection of origin, but leaves open how the Office intends to distinguish between mere use and an allusion in individual cases, particularly when a protected product appears only as an ingredient. This distinction will likely only become clearer through future decisions.
According to the Office’s own assessment, the new priority rules for design invalidation proceedings also have room for improvement. On the other hand, applicants are likely to benefit from the fact that proceedings involving unsuitable prior laws will be concluded more quickly in the future and that deadline extensions will be possible without the need to provide evidence.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
