EUIPO on consequences of hard Brexit
On 18 January 2018, the Intellectual Property Office of the European Union (EUIPO) published its opinion paper answering the most burning questions concerning the impact of the UK´s withdrawal from the EU regarding EU Trademarks and EU Designs.
The EUIPO raises in 29 questions and answers the consequences on intellectual property law in case of a “hard Brexit”. A hard Brexit would lead to the situation that after the withdrawal date no EU rules about trademarks and designs would be applicable in the United Kingdom. Although there is a possibility that some bilateral or unilateral agreements might be closed in the future, up to date the final consequences of the Brexit are unclear as the negotiations are still in process. Therefore, the position paper is only based on the current status (18 January 2018) and does not consider any future arrangements.
In the statement, the EUIPO answered questions concerning following ten main fields:
- ownership of the EU Trademarks (EUTM)
- scope of protection of the EUTM
- maintenance of rights conferred to the EUTM
- capacity to act and representation before the EUIPO
- English language in the proceedings before the EUIPO
- priority and seniority claims
- absolute grounds of refusal and invalidity
- relative grounds of refusal and invalidity
- revocation for non-use
- EU Designs
- 1 December 2017: Madrid Monitor takes its place as the one and only tool for tracking international trademarks
- 1 January 2020 - Changes in Classifications - Trademarks, Designs, Patents and Utility Models
- 100th Anniversary of Bavaria (Germany) - A glance at trademarks, start-ups, innovation & events
- 10th Anniversary Edition - 10 Things to Know about LexDellmeier - Past, Present & Future
- 15 Years LexDellmeier - 2024 New Year Wishes
- A new legal EU framework regulating Artificial Intelligence
- All these small Gimmicks – Trademark Infringement?
- Another year older…
- António Campinos will be the new EPO President from June 2018
- Arguments gone with the wind: the EGC upholds a decision concerning a potential one-letter “e” mark