Protecting Craft and Industrial Products: The EU’s New Geographical Indication (GI) Framework Effective December 2025

It may not seem obvious, but “Parma ham“ and “Champagne” share several important similarities. On the one hand, both are agricultural products. On the other hand, they are geographical indications. The latter can be protected legally as “Protected Designations of Origin” (PDOs) thanks to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which provides EU-wide protection of Geographical Indications for agricultural products, wines and spirits.

In contrast, there has been so far no protection for Geographical Indications for craft and industrial products on an EU-wide basis. This is set to change from December 1st, 2025, with Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, which provides for the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products at EU level.

  Weiterlesen über Protecting Craft and Industrial Products: The EU’s New Geographical Indication (GI) Framework Effective December 2025

The similarity of goods and services is always a decisive issue when it comes to trademark collision and infringement. Proceeding against an alleged trademark infringer requires not only the mark being identical or similar to a registered trademark, but also the goods and services need to be identical or similar. Not always it is clear whether or not there actually is sufficient similarity to establish trademark infringement. Further, the different decision-making bodies in the EU (and the national offices and courts as well) do not always take the same approach or come to the same conclusions. The EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal took a closer look at how similarity between “cosmetics” in Class 3 and “pharmaceuticals” in Class 5 – two classes, often opposing each other – are being treated at EU level and we would like to briefly summarize the findings to give you a better understanding of the approach(es).

 Ein Bild, das medizinische Ausrüstung, Gesundheitsversorgung, Im Haus, medizinisch enthält.</p>
<p>KI-generierte Inhalte können fehlerhaft sein.

(Source: Shutterstock, ID: 2294393873)

Picture this: on a sunny morning, you peek into your mailbox (the real one, not your emails) and find a pretty envelope. As you reach for it with childish excitement, you ask yourself who had the lovely idea to send you a postcard from their summer vacation. Then you open it and realise it is a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer. It turns out that you keep using their client’s songs in your Tik-Tok videos without authorization and they want you to stop “infringing their copyright”. Your disappointment is immeasurable, and your day is ruined. And your bank account potentially as well, since they also demand a hefty payment. If you are an influencer and would like to avoid this type of situation, this article is for you.

New Name, Legal Check

Rebranding and Trademark Law – What You Need to Know When Changing Your Brand Name

Rebranding can be an exciting yet risky move for any business. Whether you are modernizing your image, merging with another company, or simply trying to distance yourself from a negative past, changing your brand name is a significant step. But while marketing and design often take centre stage in rebranding projects, the legal dimension – especially trademark law – is just as critical. A poorly managed brand transition can lead to infringement claims, lost brand equity, and expensive disputes.

Here is a guideline from a trademark law perspective when considering a rebrand – and where we can support you.

SUMMER – FESTIVAL TIME – BUILDING TRADEMARK VALUE

Well over two months late for World IP Day, but still keen to talk about IP and music.

Per chance, I recently listened to an OMR podcast with Holger Hübner, one of the founders of the Wacken Open Air festival and I was surprised how focused he was on brand management and the implications it has. More than once he reiterated that “the brand takes precedence over everything.” What a great example of how Intellectual Property (IP) and music go hand in hand. Read more on our blog.

Have you ever posted a video of yourself performing a little dance on TikTok? Or uploaded photos of your latest vacation on a sun-bathed island on Instagram? There is a good chance that you did, since more than 5 billion persons are currently social media users, which represents roughly 64% of the world population. If you post on social media regularly and receive payments for doing so by commercial partners, congratulations: you may call yourself an influencer! No matter what the haters say about it, your activity on social media is an actual business. The contents you create are valuable and therefore deserve protection. In this article, you will learn a few basics on how to protect your own intellectual property.

IP Right Holders do better

Findings of the “Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the European Union” firm-level analysis report by the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) and the EPO (European Patent Office) of January 2025

(Image created by ChatGPT)

We recently held a webinar on the upcoming amendments to EU design law. To learn more about the new amendments, listen to our webinar recording uploaded on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qboxETLtuXo. Most changes will be applicable as from 1 May 2025, others will have to wait until 1 July 2026 when secondary legislation comes into force. Read our latest blog article to get some practical advice on the current changes.

Few are those nowadays who have not heard of the wonders of machine learning technologies. Names such as “ChatGPT”, “DeepSeek” or “Midjourney” have become known to virtually everybody and, for many, are now part of our everyday life. Writing a moving poem, drawing a realistic picture or composing a pretty melody has never been as easy as with the help of these new virtual assistants. As artificial intelligence (so-called “AI”) becomes increasingly involved in creative processes, the question of whether copyright protection may be granted to AI-generated content becomes more relevant by the day.

Virtual Goods in Focus – EU General Court’s First Ruling

The General Court (GC) has issued its first-ever ruling on the distinctiveness of a trademark applied to virtual goods. The decision T11163/23 dated 11 December 2024 – “Glashütte ORIGINAL”  concerned the application for the following sign:

01

Has the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) rejected your trademark application but the decision is not yet final? Consider withdrawing the application to keep the option alive to convert your application into national trademark applications in individual EU Member States – without the restrictions that apply to conversion after final refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Source: shutterstock, image ID 2192321961)