EUIPO Trade Mark Focus...computers and/or scientific and technological services experienced...

EUIPO Trade Mark Focus2010 to 2019 Evolution

EUIPO TRADE MARK FOCUS 2010 TO 2019 EVOLUTION

2

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOREWORD

The evolution of demand for EU trade marks (EUTMs) from 2010-2019 is a striking illustration of the value to this IP right in the modern economy and the changes that have taken place over a decade.

This new report also shows the scale of the challenge in encouraging the EU’s SMEs to make more effective use of their IP rights, as well as their ongoing importance as customers of the EUIPO with specific requirements that need to be addressed.

In 2019, SMEs based in the EU were estimated to have been responsible for 58% of all EUTM direct filings, while those from other regions represented an additional 25%. However, since 99% of businesses are classed as small or medium-sized, this is only a small fraction of the total who might potentially benefit.

Fewer than one in ten (9%) of SMEs have any registered IP rights even though SMEs using registered IP rights are stronger, pay higher wages and have better growth prospects.

In addition to the information on SMEs, the EUTM ‘evolution report’ contains a huge amount of interesting data drawn from the period 2010-2019, including the classic Top 10 filing countries and the Top 10 big filers. It shows that a total of 1.27 million filings were made from all over the world, representing an average annual growth rate of 5.6%.

Filing volumes reflect changes in the global economy with the EU share of total filings falling and China moving from small beginnings to become the third largest country of origin by the end of the decade.

This shift in the origin of filings is also shown in the Top 10 EUTM applicants. Three of the top

ten rankings at the end of the decade were from South Korea or China, with the number one position taken by the South Korean multinational LG Electronics.

Overall applications from companies for trade marks covering electrical apparatus and computers and/or scientific and technological services experienced significant increases over the period, reflecting the shift to Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies.

In the early months of 2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic continued to cause significant damage both to human health and the economy worldwide, China overtook the United States as the second largest country of origin for EUTM applications after Germany.

With many countries experiencing economic downturns and job losses, it is vital to ensure that the different needs of all the customer segments for IP rights are met effectively, employing all the advances in technology available to provide a more tailored service.

SMEs, which were already a priority sector under the EU’s new industry strategy have been among the hardest hit by this unprecedented crisis. They need help to understand the IP landscape and know where they can get finance; easier paths to registration of the most appropriate and accessible rights; help with other tools such as domain names or trade secrets; and help with enforcement.

This latest report provides further evidence that addressing the needs of smaller companies, including the EU SMEs who represent the majority of users of EUTMs, must be a priority, both now and in the future.

Christian ArchambeauExecutive Director

3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & INFOGRAPHIC2. EUTM FILINGS 2.1 Global Filing Volumes 2.2 Top 10 Global Filing Countries 2.3 Top 10 European Union Filing Countries 2.4 Top 10 Global Filing Applicants 2.5 Top 10 European Union Filing Applicants 2.6 Top 10 Global Filing Classes 2.7 Top 10 European Union Filing Classes3. EXAMINATION OF EUTM FILINGS4. REFUSAL OF EUTM FILINGS BASED ON ABSOLUTE GROUNDS5. PUBLICATION OF EUTM FILINGS6. EUTM REGISTRATIONS 6.1 Registration Volumes & Timeliness 6.2 Top 10 Global Registration Countries 6.3 Top 10 Global Registration Owners 6.4 Top 10 Global Registration Classes7. EUTM OPPOSITIONS 7.1 Opposition Volumes, Rates & Timeliness 7.2 Opposition Languages 7.3 Top 10 Opposition Countries 7.4 Top 10 Opposition Classes8. EUTM CANCELLATIONS 8.1 Cancellation Volumes, Rates & Timeliness 8.2 Cancellation Languages 8.3 Top 10 Cancellation Countries 8.4 Top 10 Cancellation Classes9. EUTM RENEWALS 9.1 Renewal Volumes & Rates 9.2 Top 10 Renewal Countries 9.3 Top 10 Renewal Classes10. EUTM IN FORCE11. ANNEX

040606081011121416181920212122232425252828303232343535373737384041


4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & INFOGRAPHIC

The ten-year period from 2010 to 2019 was defined by the remarkable expansion of the European Union Trade Mark (EUTM), which experienced exceptional growth rates in filings and registrations, as well as associated procedures such as oppositions, cancellations and renewals.

Nearly 1.27 million EUTM filings, including over 3.4 million goods and services classes, were filed during the last decade, with an average annual growth rate of 5.6% and an overall growth rate of 63.1% when comparing the 2019 and 2010 filing volumes. These figures demonstrate the development of the EUTM as an important and effective Intellectual Property right that protects commercial innovations in the European Union (EU), one of the largest and most attractive consumer markets in the world.

The commercial appeal of the European Union common market is highlighted by the presence of the world´s two largest economies, The United States of America and The People’s Republic of China, in the Top 10 ranking of countries with the most EUTM filings, with the United States occupying the second overall position and China experiencing remarkable growth rates that vastly outpaced the other Top 10 countries, which collectively accounted for nearly 73% of all EUTM filings.

A dynamic analysis of the annual evolution of EUTM filing volumes by different countries or blocs reveals the emergence of a new trend during the last decade. The EU share of total filings fell from 71.3% at the beginning of the decade to 64.7% by 2019, while China evolved from a small player in 2010 (1.4%) to being the third largest country of origin by the end of the decade (9.5%). Other countries had slight share fluctuations but generally increased filings in absolute terms.

The Top 10 EUTM applicants are all large multinational enterprises and market leaders in their respective sectors. While the majority of these businesses are based in the Top 10 filing countries, the first and fourth positions in the ranking are respectively occupied by the South Korean electronics companies LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics. The growing prevalence of technology-based enterprises in the global economy is further corroborated by the very robust growth in EUTM filings by the Chinese telecommunications equipment and services company Huawei Technologies. However, the Top 10 collectively represent only 1.3% of overall EUTM applications, which were filed by over

497,000 different applicants, with the majority being small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Indeed, in 2019 SMEs based in the EU were estimated to be responsible for 58% of all EUTM direct filings, while those from other regions represented an additional 25%. Therefore, approximately 4 out of every 5 direct filings in 2019 were submitted by SMEs, underscoring their impact and importance as economic growth and development engines within and beyond the EU.

Class 9 (Electrical Apparatus; Computers) narrowly tops the ranking of most filed classes, with Class 35 (Advertising; Business Management) following closely behind in second and Class 42 (Scientific & Technological Services) in third place. The top three classes accounted for slightly over 25% of the total class filings while the Top 10 classes collectively represent almost 52% of classes filed.

Applications from the EU and other regions of the World seeking to provide protection covering electrical apparatus and computers and/or scientific and technological services experienced significant increases during the last decade, while filings for goods such as clothing, pharmaceutical, cosmetics and food grew at lower rates. Applications for protection of goods relating to paper and printed matter, stationary and office requisites actually decreased by 7.5%, when comparing the class filing volumes for Class 16 from 2010 and 2019.

Between 2010 and 2019, more than 176,000 oppositions and 16,000 cancellation actions were filed against EUTM applications and registrations, while over 353,000 registrations were renewed. Additionally, 1.6 million EUTM registrations, containing more than 4.4 million associated goods and services classes, were in force on January 1st, 2020.

In order to deal with these extremely high volumes, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) spent the last decade developing and implementing strategies that effectively tackled increasing workloads while achieving a series of efficiency gains that led to noteworthy reductions in the timeliness of key activities such as the publication of applications (-78.5%), registrations (-22.1%), decisions on oppositions (-16.5%) and decisions on cancellations (-20.0%). These important developments reflect a concerted effort by the EUIPO to better meet user expectations by facilitating the rapid and effective protection of commercial innovations in goods and services within the European Union.

5

2010-2019 EVOLUTION OF EUTM FILINGS

TOP 10 GLOBAL APPLICANTS

TOP 10 GLOBAL CLASSES

TOP 10 GLOBAL COUNTRIES

160.498.4

+63.1%

2010 2019

Annual Filings (in thousands)

386.4275.2

+40.4%

2010 2019

Annual Classes (in thousands)

497,000Applicants

1,269,260EUTM Filings

1 2.7Classes(Average)

Filing

Account for 1.3%

of Filings

Dracco Brands

Account for 51.7% of Filed Classes

09 Electrical Apparatus; Computers

35 Advertising; Business Management

42 Scientific & Technological Services

41 Education; Sporting and Cultural Activities

25 Clothing; Footwear

16 Paper; Printed Matter; Office Requisites

05 Pharmaceutical Preparations

03 Cleaning Preparations; Cosmetics

38 Telecommunications

30 Food of Plant Origin

Share of Total Filed Classes% growth

2019 vs 2010

9.8%

9.5%

6.5%

5.8%

4.6%

3.5%

3.5%

3.2%

2.7%

2.6%

+ 60.2%

+ 51.3%

+ 54.8%

+ 44.8%

+ 38.7%

- 7.5%

+ 39.0%

+ 53.5%

+ 13.1%

+ 37.6%

16,1%

GERMANY

8,6%

UK

7,2%

SPAIN

5,0%

CHINA SWITZERLAND

3,2%

27,5%

OTHERCOUNTRIES

8,0%

ITALY

6,2%

FRANCE

3,5%

POLAND

2,4%

NETHERLANDS

12,2%

USA

Account for 72.5% of Filings


6

2.1 Global Filing Volumes

The ten-year period from 2010 to 2019 was characterized by an exceptional growth in the number of European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) filings, with an average annual growth rate of 5.6% and an overall growth rate of 63.1% when comparing the 2019 and 2010 filing volumes.

The forecasted annual filing volume foreseen in the EUIPO Work Programme 2020 (167,700)1 will take the overall number of EUTM filings since the beginning of 2010 past the 1.4 million mark, confirming the sustained development of the European Union Trade Mark as a strong, effective mechanism for protecting commercial innovations in one of the world’s largest consumer markets.1 - The EUIPO Work Programme 2020 was developed and approved in 2019. The impact of the

COVID-19 pandemic on the forecasted filings for 2020 and beyond is being closely monitored and considered by the EUIPO.

EUTM Filings2010 to 20191,269,260

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2010 2011

Fast Track Direct 15,795 29,041 35,872 42,524 48,814 53,649

84,064

98,368105,949 107,999

114,310 117,525

130,444135,326

146,414152,524

160,401

89,369 91,976 96,115 84,552 79,524 80,670 79,008 78,555 78,191

14,304 16,580 16,023 18,195 17,178 21,879 18,784 24,882 25,155 28,561

Regular Track Direct

International Registrations

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2. EUTM FILINGS

EUTM Application Filings2019 vs 2010+63.1%

Of all 2019 Direct Filings were Fast Track Filings40.7% Of all 2019 Direct Filings were

E-filed, up from 93.5% in 201099.8%

Growth vs 2010 EUTM Filings

0,00%

0,00%

7,7%

7,7%

9,8%

9,8%

16,2%

16,2%

19,5%

19,5%

32,6%

32,6%

37,6%

37,6%

48,8%

48,8%

55,1%

55,1%

63,1%

63,1%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20190%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%2010

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

REGULAR TRACK DIRECT FAST TRACK DIRECT

7

A cumulative analysis of the last decade confirms that the majority of EUTM filings continued to originate from within the EU, which had an average share of 68.3% of total filings from 2010 to 2019. Germany led the way as the top EU and global filing country, followed by other large EU economies such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and France.

The United States, China and Switzerland were the three non-EU countries with the highest average shares of filings and collectively represent almost two-thirds (2/3) of all non-EU EUTM filings during the relevant period.

However, a dynamic analysis of the annual evolution of EUTM filing volumes by different countries or blocs reveals an important change and the emergence of a new trend during the last decade. The EU share of total filings fell from 71.3% at the beginning of the decade to 64.7% by 2019, while China evolved from a small player in 2010 (only 1.4% of total filings) to being the third largest country of origin by the end of the decade (9.5% of total filings). Other countries had slightly positive or negative relative fluctuations but generally increased filings in absolute terms.

Average Share of Total EUTM FilingsNon-EU vs EU

Average Share of Total EUTM FilingsEU vs Non-EU

Dynamic Share of Total EUTM FilingsEU vs Non-EU

EU68.3%

Non EU31.7%

Germany 16.1%

Italy 8.0%

France 6.2%

UK 8.6%

Poland 2.4%

Spain 7.2%Netherlands 3.5%

Austria 2.4%

Sweden 2.2%Belgium 1.7%

Other EU 9.9%

EU68.3%

Non EU31.7%

Other Countries 11.3%

Switzerland 3.2%

China 5.0%

USA 12.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

European Union China United States Switzerland Other Countries

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

71,3% 70,5% 70,9% 70,2% 70,2% 68,5% 68,8% 66,0% 65,6% 64,7%

13,1%

10,5% 10,9% 10,9% 11,3% 11,2% 12,2% 11,2% 11,4% 11,3% 11,7%

1,4%3,7% 3,7% 3,3% 3,6% 3,6% 3,1% 2,8% 2,9% 2,8% 2,8%

1,7% 1,8% 1,9% 2,4% 3,2% 5,9% 8,3% 8,8% 9,5%13,1% 13,1% 13,1% 12,6% 13,0% 11,4% 11,4% 11,4% 11,3%


8

The economic importance and commercial appeal of the European Union common market is highlighted by the presence of the world´s two largest economies, The United States of America and The People’s Republic of China, in the Top 10 ranking of countries with the most cumulative EUTM filings during the 2010-2019 period, with the United States occupying the second overall position and China experiencing remarkable growth rates that vastly outpaced the other Top 10 countries.

Germany tops the ranking, being responsible for 16% of all EUTM filings. Other large European Union economies, namely Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Poland collectively account for slightly more than 27% of total filings (the same percentage as all non-Top 10 countries). Italy´s growth is particularly worth noting, having surpassed the United Kingdom in the number of annual filings in 2016, although the U.K. claims the third overall position for the period in question.

Yearly Evolution of EUTM Filings by Top 10 Countries

Cumulative Yearly Evolution of EUTM Filings

2.2 Top 10 Global Filing Countries

EUTM Filings2019 vs 2010




+40.2%

+24.0%

+1,027.9%

+62.7%

Average AnnualGrowth Rate




4.0%

2.5%

33.2%

5.8%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

GERMANY ITALYUNITED STATES

FRANCE

UNITED KINGDOM

POLAND

SPAIN

SWITZERLANDNETHERLANDSCHINA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0

40,000

20,000

80,000

60,000

120,000

100,000

160,000

140,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

GERMANY ITALYUNITED STATES

FRANCE

UNITED KINGDOM

POLAND OTHER COUNTRIES

SPAIN

SWITZERLANDNETHERLANDSCHINA

9

While all Top 10 countries experienced overall growth during the last ten years, the United Kingdom registered an average negative annual growth rate of -3.0% from 2016 to 2019. This downturn may have been influenced by geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty and volatility caused by public policy changes in the U.K., such as the Brexit process, with enterprises based in the British economy possibly adopting more conservative and risk-averse business strategies, including the reduction of investments in international consumer markets.

The number of EUTM filings from Switzerland remained relatively stable, while the share from the non-Top 10 countries increased from 25.4% in 2010 to 28.9% in 2019, with a 7.1% average annual growth rate and +85.1% filings in 2019 than in 2010.

Share of Total EUTM Filings

OtherCountries

27.5%

Top 10 Countries72.5%

Germany 16.1%

Italy 8,0%

United States 12.2%

France 6,2%

UK 8.6%

Poland 2,4%

Spain 7,2%

Netherlands 3.5%

Switzerland 3.2%

China 5.0%

Rank Country Volume %

1 Germany 204,603 16.1%

2 United States 155,387 12.2%

3 United Kingdom 109,043 8.6%

4 Italy 101,467 8.0%

5 Spain 91,907 7.2%

6 France 78,969 6.2%

7 China 63,075 5.0%

8 Netherlands 44,295 3.5%

9 Switzerland 40,240 3.2%

10 Poland 31,090 2.4%

- Other Countries 349,184 27.5%

- All Countries 1,269,260 100.0%

of all EUTM FilingsAccounted for 72.5% Top 10 Countries


10

0

6,000

12,000

18,000

3,000

9,000

15,000

21,000

24,000

GERMANY ITALY

SWEDEN

FRANCEUNITED KINGDOM

POLAND

SPAIN

BELGIUMNETHERLANDS AUSTRIA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152016

2017 2018 2019



+46.1%

+146.1%



4.4%

10.8%

Yearly Evolution of EUTM Filings by Top 10 EU Countries

2.3 Top 10 European Union Filing Countries

The seven EU countries that comprise the Global Top 10 countries ranking are joined by Austria, Sweden and Belgium in the EU version of the ranking. The five largest EU economies during this period (U.K. included) were responsible for two-thirds (2/3) of all EU EUTM filings, while the Top 10 as a whole represent approximately 85% of total filings originating from the EU. Although the U.K. registered negative annual growth during 3 of the last 4 years it was a member of the Union, it still managed to achieve an overall average annual growth rate (AAG) of +2.8%, on par with France.

The performance of other members of the EU ranking during the last ten years was highly progressive, with countries like Poland (+10.8% AAG) the Netherlands (+4.4 AAG) and Spain (+3.6% AAG) all demonstrating robust growth trends. Indeed, all EU Top 10 countries increased filings by at least 24%, when comparing their 2019 and 2010 filing volumes.

Share of EU EUTM Filings

Other EU14.5%

Top 10 EU85.5%

Germany 23.6%

Italy 11.7%

France9.1%

UK 12.6%

Poland 3.6%

Spain 10.6%

Austria 3.5%Sweden 3.2%Belgium 2.5%

Netherlands5.1%

EUTM Filings2019 vs 2010+37.2% Average Annual

Growth Rate3.6%

11

Cumulative Yearly Evolution of EUTM Filings by Top 10 Applicants


1 Germany 204,603 23.6%


3 Italy 101,467 11.7%

4 Spain 91,907 10.6%

5 France 78,969 9.1%


7 Austria 31,090 3.6%

8 Poland 30,623 3.5%

9 Sweden 27,750 3.2%

10 Belgium 21,834 2.5%


- All EU Countries 867,028 100.0%

2.4 Top 10 Global Filing Applicants

While the majority of the Top 10 EUTM applicants are based in the Top 10 filing countries, the first and fourth positions in the ranking are occupied by the South Korean electronics companies LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics, respectively. The growing prevalence of technology-based enterprises in the global economy is further corroborated by the very robust growth in EUTM filings by the Chinese telecommunications equipment and services company Huawei Technologies.

The Top 10 EUTM applicants from 2010 to 2019 are all large multinational enterprises and market leaders in their respective industrial and commercial sectors, such as: consumer electronics; telecommunications; pharmaceuticals; personal hygiene products; food and beverages. However, they collectively represent only 1.3% of overall EUTM filings, which are overwhelmingly filed by small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Indeed, in 2019 SMEs based in the EU were estimated to be responsible for 58% of all EUTM direct filings, while those from other regions represented an additional 25%. Therefore, approximately 4 out of every 5 direct filings in 2019 were submitted by SMEs, underscoring their impact and importance as economic growth and development engines within and beyond the EU.

Average Annual Growth Rate




+34.2%

+29.3%

71.1%

6.9%

Of all EUTM FilingsAccounted for 85.5%Top 10 Countries

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20190

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Dracco Brands


12

Companies such as L’Oréal (cosmetics) and Novartis (pharmaceuticals) also significantly increased their overall number of EUTM filings during the last ten years, while enterprises such as Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson, which operate primarily in mature industries and commercial sectors, remained stable or had reductions in their average annual growth rates.

The three EU applicants that comprise the Global Top 10 applicants ranking are joined by an additional seven EU companies in the EU version of the ranking. As a whole, the Top 10 EU applicants represent an interesting cross section of some of the most important industrial and commercial sectors in the European Union that extensively utilise Intellectual Property in general and trade marks in particular.

Rank Applicant Volume

1 LG Electronics 3,167

2 L’Oréal 2,354

3 Novartis 2,110

4 Samsung Electronics 1,649

5 Huawei Technologies 1,448

6 Dracco Brands 1,278

7 Glaxo 1,165

8 Proctor & Gamble 982

9 Johnson & Johnson 933

10 Novomatic 879

Cumulative Yearly Evolution of EUTM Filings by Top 10 EU Applicants

2.5 Top 10 European Union Filing Applicants





10.5%

10.4%

22.8%

17.6%

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1 Dracco Brands2 3 4 5

109876

Of all EUTM FilingsAccounted for 1.3%Top 10 Applicants

13


1 L'Oréal 2,354

2 Dracco Brands 1,278

3 Glaxo 1,165

4 Novomatic 879

5 Unilever 739

6 Daimler 730

7 BSH Hausgerate 706

8 Henkel 653

9 Lidl 595

10 Boehringer Ingelheim 563

With the exception of Dracco Brands (a Danish holding firm and subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based toy and entertainment company), the Top 10 EU applicants come from the Top 10 EU filing countries. The French cosmetics company L’Oréal leads the way, having registered strong average annual growth throughout the majority of the last decade. Other top EU applicants include the British pharmaceutical company Glaxo and the British-Dutch transnational consumer goods company Unilever.

The second half of the Top 10 comprises five well-known German enterprises, namely; Daimler (parent company of the Mercedes-Benz automotive brand), BSH Hausgerate (home appliances) Henkel (chemical and consumer goods), Lidl (supermarket chain) and Boehringer Ingelheim (pharmaceuticals).

of all EU EUTM FilingsAccounted for 1.1% Top 10 EU Applicants


14

Yearly Evolution of Top 10 Class Filings

2.6 Top 10 Global Filing Classes

The vigorous growth in the volume of EUTM applications during the last decade is reflected in the 3.4 million goods and services classes of the Nice Classification included in filings, with an average annual growth rate of 3.9% and an overall growth rate of 40.4% when comparing the 2019 and 2010 class filing volumes.

The top three classes accounted for slightly over 25% of the total class filings while the Top 10 classes collectively represent almost 52% of classes filed.

While the top three classes experienced strong growth, class filings for goods such as clothing (Class 25), pharmaceuticals (Class 5), cosmetics (Class 3) and food (Class 30) grew at lower rates. Applications for protection of goods relating to paper, printed matter, stationary and office requisites actually

Class 9 (Electrical Apparatus; Computers) narrowly tops the ranking, with Class 35 (Advertising; Business Management) following closely behind in second place. Both of these classes each had more than 320,000 filings during the period in question. The third place in the ranking is occupied by Class 42 (Scientific & Technological Services), which is strongly correlated with Class 9, as many EUTM filings simultaneously designate both classes for protection as part of vertical integration business strategies, e.g. producers of computers and/or software also providing computer and/or software-related technological services.

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

254109 35 42 030516 38 30

Class Filings2010 to 20193,409,706 Class Filings

2019 vs 2010+40.4

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Other Classes

254109 35 42 030516 38 30

Cumulative Yearly Evolution of Class Filings

Class Filings2019 vs 2010




+60.2%Class 09 Class 42

Class 35 Class 16+51.3%

+54.8%

-7.5%

15

decreased by 7.5%, when comparing the class filing volumes for Class 16 from 2010 and 2019. These trends confirm the increasing shift in human society from the physical manipulation of information to more immaterial, digital means and the growing preponderance of technology-based goods and services in all aspects of daily life and commercial activity within the European Union.

The alteration from a three-class-per-filing fee to a one-class-per-fling fee structure has led to a reduction in the average number of classes being included in EUTM direct filings since the change took effect in March 2016, with the historical average of 2.8 classes per filing dropping to 2.7 classes per filing by the end of 2017 and forecasts pointing to 2.5 classes per filing in 2020.

Share of Total Class Filings

Other Classes

48.3%

Top 10Classes 51.7%

09 - 9.8%

35 - 9.5%

42 - 6.5%41 - 5.8%

25 - 4.6%

16 - 3.5%

05 - 3.5%

03 - 3.2%

38 - 2.7% 30 - 2.6%

1 - Full Nice Class Headings

available in Annex

Rank Class Abbreviated Nice Class Headings 1 Volume %

1 09 Electrical Apparatus; Computers 333,848 9.8%

2 35 Advertising; Business Management 322,342 9.5%

3 42 Scientific & Technological Services 220,611 6.5%

4 41 Education; Sporting and Cultural Activities 197,906 5.8%

5 25 Clothing; Footwear 157,355 4.6%

6 16 Paper; Printed Matter; Office Requisites 119,609 3.5%

7 05 Pharmaceutical Preparations 118,077 3.5%

8 03 Cleaning Preparations; Cosmetics 108,315 3.2%

9 38 Telecommunications 93,371 2.7%

10 30 Food of Plant Origin 89,916 2.6%

- - Other Classes 1,648,356 48.3%

- - All Classes 3,409,706 100.0%

Of allClass Filings

Top 10 Classes 51.7%Accounted for


16

2.7 Top 10 European Union Filing Classes

A comparative analysis between the Global Top 10 filing classes and the EU version of the ranking reveals various common trends in composition and growth rates. Indeed, the main noteworthy difference is the swap between the two top classes, with Class 35 leading the EU version and Class 9 coming in second. With the exception of Class 16, which had a slightly negative average annual growth rate, all top classes registered moderate to high growth rates.

Cumulative Yearly Evolution of EU EUTM Class Filings

Share of Total EU EUTM Class Filings

EU Class Filings2019 vs 2010

EU Class Filings2019 vs 2010+34.0% Class 35 +45.9%

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

25410935 42 030516 38 30

Other Classes

The Top 4 EU classes all experienced strong average annual growth above 4% and increased their respective filing volumes by at least 40%, when comparing their 2019 filings to those from 2010.

Other Classes

49.0%

Top 10 EU51.0%

35 - 10.0%

09 - 8.4%

42 - 6.5%41 - 6.0%

25 - 4.4%

16 - 3.7%

05 - 3.2%

03 - 3.1%

38 - 2.9% 30 - 2.6%

EU Class Filings2019 vs 2010+45.8%Class 09

EU EUTM Filings2010 to 20192,532,711

17


available in Annex

Rank Class Abbreviated Nice Class Headings 2 Volume %











- - Other EU Classes 1,240,874 49.0%

- - All EU Classes 2,532,711 100.0%

Of allEU Class Filings

Top 10 EU Classes 51.0%Accounted for


18

3. EXAMINATION OF EUTM FILINGSEUTM filings undergo an examination process that analyses the contents of the applications in order to guarantee that all legal requirements for the successful registration of the trade marks are met. It is important to note that the EUIPO does not examine relative grounds for refusal ex officio. These may be raised only by third parties in opposition proceedings or in cancellation proceedings. If the EUIPO detects errors or raises objections during this process, the applicant is informed and has two months to remedy the deficiencies and reply to the official communication. During the last ten years, almost 35% of filings contained at least one deficiency, with more than 386,000 deficiencies being detected.

Deficiency rates varied considerably amongst top filing countries, with China having an extremely low rate (15.6%), followed by Italy (24.0%) and Spain (29.1%). The United States and France were aligned with the overall rate while the United Kingdom (43.0%) and Germany (40.2%) presented above average figures.

46.0% of the deficiencies were related to the classification of goods and services, with formal errors concerning filing languages, owner and/or representative data, priority and/or seniority claims accounting for another 12.4%. Absolute grounds deficiencies primarily associated with the potential lack of distinctiveness or the descriptive nature of the examined trade marks made up the third large block of identified deficiencies regarding EUTM filings between 2010 and 2019.

Even though the vast majority of these deficiencies were corrected by applicants, the overall refusal rate increased during this period, with the vast majority of refusals being related to absolute grounds.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010

WITHOUT DEFICIENCY WITH DEFICIENCY

33,0%36,7% 40,0%

39,3% 39,4%37,6% 35,5%

31,9% 28,3% 28,2%

63,3%67,0% 60,0% 60,7%

60,6% 62,4% 64,5%68,1% 71,7%

71,8%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Average Deficiency Rate Examined EUTM Filings

Number of Deficiencies detected in Examined EUTM Filings 2010 to 2019

34.6%

386,170

177,52046.0%

Classification

Formalities

Absolute Grounds

Other

83,82121.7%

76,94519.9%

47,88412.4%

Types of Deficiencies detected in Examination

Refused after Examination due to Deficiencies

0,00%

3,00%

6,00%

REFUSED AFTER EXAMINATION DUE TO DEFICIENCIES

2,2%

3,6% 3,4%

4,4%

5,6%

4,5%

5,0%

4,5%

5,3%5,1%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

19

AG Refusals

Types of Absolute Grounds invoked in AG Refusals

Appeal Rate of AG Refusals

4. REFUSAL OF EUTM FILINGS BASED ON ABSOLUTE GROUNDS

Absolute grounds (AG) for the refusal of EUTM applications cover a variety of prohibitive scenarios which include potential conflicts with other protected signs such as designations of origin and geographical indications, plant variety denominations, traditional terms for wines, flags and other symbols associated with countries, national and international organisations. However, the majority (54.9%) of invoked grounds during the last decade dealt with trade marks devoid of any distinctive character (Article 7 (1) (b) EUTMR).

Trade marks consisting exclusively of descriptive elements (Article 7 (1) (c) EUTMR) accounted for an additional 41.8% of all filings refused based on AG, while the remaining 3.3% of refusals invoked other grounds such as the ones referenced at the beginning of this section.

The vast majority of the refusals based on AG that were taken by the EUIPO between 2010 and 2019 were accepted by applicants without any further actions. The appeal rate for these decisions significantly decreased during the last decade, with less than 12% of all AG refusals being contested by applicants in 2019, as opposed to almost 16% in 2010.

Although the vast majority of the refusals based on AG that were taken by the EUIPO between 2010 and 2019 were accepted by applicants without any further actions, on average 14.4% of these decisions were appealed annually during the relevant period.

2176

4791

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

3612 3441

63845609

66657170

5484

6712

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

52,044 Absolute Grounds Refusals2010 to 2019

3.3%

41.8%

54.9%

Non-Distinctive: (Article 7 (1) (b) EUTMR)

Discriptive: (Article 7 (1) (c) EUTMR)

Other Absolute Grounds

10%

15%

20%

APPEAL RATE OF AG REFUSALS

15,9% 15,8% 16,0%14,9%

16,7%

14,0% 13,9% 13,3%

11,5% 11,5%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


20

5. PUBLICATION OF EUTM FILINGS

After successfully completing the examination phase of the registration process, EUTM applications are published on the EUIPO website in electronic bulletins organised in accordance with World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) standards for the bibliographical data treatment of trade marks. The publication of applications is an indispensable and important part of the registration process, as this allows third parties operating in the European Union common market to evaluate whether the trade marks in question potentially infringe upon their own earlier rights. From 2010 to 2019, approximately nine out of every ten EUTM filings were published, with the remaining application either being withdrawn or refused due to deficiencies.

In 2010, EUTM filings that successfully made it through the examination process took on average 37 working days to be published, as measured from their respective filing dates. During the last ten years, the EUIPO managed to achieve a series of notable efficiency gains that led to a 78.5% reduction in the average filing to publication time for Regular Track filings. Additionally, Fast Track filings have consistently been published in less than 7 working days since their introduction in 2014.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010

PUBLISHED WITHDRAWN OR REFUSED DUE TO DEFICIENCIES

7,0% 8,2% 8,0% 9,4% 10,8% 8,3% 8,9% 7,4% 5,6% 4,3%

91,8%93,0%

92,0%90,6%

89,2% 91,7%91,1%

92,6%94,4%

95,7%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Average Publication RateEUTM Filings 2010 to 2019

(29 working days)Reduction in time from EUTM Filing to Publication (Regular Track) 2019 vs 2010

92.2%

78.5%

0

10

20

30

40

25

15

5

35

FAST TRACK

37

31 3027

24

141411 11

85 5 6 6 6

4

REGULAR TRACK

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

WorkingDays

Publication Timeliness

21

EUTM Registrations2010 to 2019

(1.3 months)Reduction in time from EUTM Direct Filing to Registration (Straight)2019 vs 2010

1,130,309

22.1%

6. EUTM REGISTRATIONS

The strong growth in EUTM filings during the last decade was echoed in the number of successful EUTM registrations, which grew consecutively from 2011 to 2019, after an initial decrease from 2010 to 2011. It is worth noting that while the average annual growth rate for the period was 3.9%, there was an increase of 15.2% in the number of registrations from 2015 to 2016.

These important timeliness gains reflect a concerted effort by the EUIPO to better meet user expectations by facilitating the rapid and effective protection of commercial innovations in goods and services within the European Union.

Straight-through direct filings (without examination deficiencies or oppositions) improved their average timeliness by 22.1% through the lowering of their filing to registration time from 6.0 months in 2010 to 4.7 months in 2019, while direct filings with examination deficiencies improved by 37.1%, dropping from 9.1 months in 2010 to 5.7 months in 2019. International Registrations also recorded important decreases in their average filing to registration times, with -48.8% for filings with deficiencies and -51.7% for straight-through filings, being positively influenced by procedural changes brought about by the legal reform that took place in 2017.

6.1 Registration Volumes & Timeliness

Registration Timeliness by Origin & Procedural Route

0

30000

60000

90000

120000

150000

2010

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS REGULAR TRACK DIRECT

88558

100,89193,893 95,673 98,106

103,845 109,409

126,037 128,375133,323

140,757

79662 80546 82021 87029 76454 73309

16670

12333 14231 15127 16085 16815 1628524744 22827 22715 26936

27984 33220 4107644403

72328 69532 69418

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

FAST TRACK DIRECT

EUTM Registrations 2019 vs 2010

Average Annual Growth Rate+39.5% 3.9%

0

5

10

15MONTHS

DIRECT (DEFICIENCY)DIRECT (STRAIGHT)

INTERNATIONAL (DEFICIENCY)INTERNATIONAL (STRAIGHT)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


22

6.2 Top 10 Global Registration Countries

The Top 10 ranking of countries with the most cumulative EUTM registrations from 2010 to 2019 is closely aligned with the EUTM country filings ranking, as should be expected. Indeed, the only change is the inclusion of Austria as the tenth ranked country, with Poland barely slipping out of the Top 10.

The distribution of EUTM registrations mimics the observed pattern for EUTM filings, with variations of less than 1% for all the Top 10 countries (with the aforementioned exception), both individually versus each other and collectively as opposed to all the other countries with registrations during the decade.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

SWITZERLAND

GERMANY UNITED STATES

FRANCE

UNITED KINGDOM ITALY

CHINA

SPAIN

NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EUTM Registrations 2019 vs 2010+1,127.1% Average Annual

Growth Rate34.2%

Yearly Evolution of EUTM Registrations by Top 10 Countries

OtherCountries

27.0%

Top 10 Countries73.0%

Switzerland 3.3%

Austria 2.4%

Germany 16.2%

Italy 8.1%

USA 12.3%

France 6.5%

UK 8.7%

China 4.7%

Spain 7.1%

Netherlands 3.6%

Of allEUTM RegistrationsAccounted for

Top 10 Countries 73.0%


1 Germany 183,091 16.2%

2 United States 139,231 12.3%


4 Italy 91,742 8.1%

5 Spain 80,753 7.1%

6 France 74,025 6.5%

7 China 53,590 4.7%


9 Switzerland 37,318 3.3%

10 Austria 27,014 2.4%


- All Countries 1,130,309 100.0%

23

Cumulative Yearly Evolution of EUTM Registrations by Top 10 Applicants

6.3 Top 10 Global Registration Owners

The Top 10 owners of successful EUTM registrations during the last decade include nine of the Top 10 EUTM applicants from the same period, with the only change in composition being the replacement of Dracco Brands by Nestlé, the Swiss food and beverage giant.

The first four positions on both lists are identically occupied by LG Electronics, L’Oréal, Novartis and Samsung Electronics. Glaxo moves up from seventh place in the filings ranking to fifth place in the registration ranking, while Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Novomatic occupy the lower half of both Top 10 lists, with some variation in their specific rankings.

While the Top 10 owners only represent 1.3% of overall EUTM registrations from 2010 to 2019, it is worth noting that within this microcosm, enterprises based in Europe account for 49.2% of registrations, while Asian companies claim 38.0% and North American firms comprise the remaining 12.9%.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EUTM Registrations2019 vs 2010

EUTM Registrations2019 vs 2010



+156.4%

+554.3%

32.7%

61.8%


1 LG Electronics 2,936

2 L’Oréal 2,119

3 Novartis 2,014

4 Samsung Electronics 1,340

5 Glaxo 1,138

6 Huawei Technologies 1097

7 Johnson & Johnson 922

8 Procter & Gamble 899

9 Novomatic 891

10 Nestlé 796

of all EUTM RegistrationsAccounted for 1.3% Top 10 Owners


24

6.4 Top 10 Global Registration Classes

There is an obviously strong correlation between EUTM class filings and EUTM class registrations. The Top 10 cumulative class rankings for the 2010-2019 period are identical in their composition and order, with Class 9 (Electrical Apparatus; Computers), Class 35 (Advertising; Business Administration) and Class 42 (Scientific &Technological Services) respectively occupying the first, second and third positions.

0

10,000

5,000

25,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

20,000

15,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

254109 35 42 030516 38 30

Yearly Evolution of Top 10 Class Registrations

Share of Total Class Registrations

Class Registrations2010 to 2019

Class Registrations2019 vs 20103,164,230 +25.5%

OtherClasses

49.8%

Top 10 Classes50.2%

38 2.7%38 2.7%

09 9.5%

41 5.6%

35 9.1%16 3.6%

42 6.3%

05 3.3%

25 4.5%

03 3.0%

Of allClass RegistrationsAccounted for

Top 10 Classes 50.2%Rank Class Abbreviated Nice Class Headings 3 Volume %











- - Other Classes 1,577,251 49.8%

- All Classes 3,164,230 100.0%

3 - Full Nice Class Headings available in Annex

25

From the date of publication onwards, third parties who object to the potential registration of trade marks have three months to initiate opposition proceedings.

One of the usual motives for objecting is related to earlier rights, where third parties believe that the opposed trade mark application will, if registered, conflict with their own Intellectual Property rights, which can be national trade marks from one of the Member States of the EU (national), international trade marks (registered under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol) or trade marks from the Benelux trade mark office.

Between 2010 and 2019, more than 176,000 oppositions were filed against EUTM applications. The annual breakdown of opposition filings reveals a fairly stable absolute demand for this type of procedure, with an average annual growth rate of just 0.8%, considering the downturns in some years. However, the annual increases in 2015 (+10.2%) and 2016 (+10.9%) are worth mentioning.

EUTM Opposition Filings2010 to 2019176,068

7. EUTM OPPOSITIONS7.1 Opposition Volumes, Rates & Timeliness

It is also possible to base oppositions on well-known trade marks protected under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention or geographical indications protected either under EU or Member State legislation. Additionally, third parties may consider that the opposed trade mark should not have been accepted during the examination process due to absolute grounds deficiencies, which may also be invoked in the Notice of Opposition.

During the last decade, the opposition rate against published EUTM applications decreased from 14.3% in 2010 to 10.7% in 2019, due in part to the higher growth of application filings vis-à-vis opposition filings.

0

5000

10000

15000

2000017,701 17,01717,012

16,66115,653

17,25019,141 18,600 18,352 18,681

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

10%

13%

16%14,3% 14,2%

13,5%13,2%

12,6%12,2% 12,2%

11,5%

10,9%10,7%

OPPOSITION RATE

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Opposition Filings


26

96.1% of filed oppositions were considered admissible by the Office, while the remaining 3.9% failed to meet the formal requirements set out in the EUTM Regulation.

The opposition proceedings start with a period during which parties can negotiate an agreement; this is called the ‘cooling-off’ period (COP). During this period the parties are given the option of terminating the proceedings. The COP expires two months after the notification of admissibility. It can be extended for 22 months and can last for a total of 24 months. Either party can opt-out of the extension at any time. From 2010 to 2019, 63% of all opposition filings were resolved during the COP.

The adversarial part of the proceedings comes to an end when the EUIPO informs the parties that no more observations will be allowed. This means that the file is ready for the Opposition Division to take a decision on the opposition, with the following three possible outcomes:

Opposition Totally Rejected: The EUTM application does not conflict with the earlier right(s); the opponent then pays costs to the other party (typically EUR 300) and the application proceeds to registration.

EUTM Application Totally Refused: The EUTM application conflicts with the earlier right(s); the application then fails and the EUTM applicant pays the opposition costs to the other party (typically EUR 650).

EUTM Application Partially Refused: The EUTM application partially conflicts with the earlier right(s); the goods and/or services in conflict are then removed from the list and the application proceeds to registration (costs are generally shared between the two parties).

Once the cooling-off period has expired, the adversarial part of the proceedings begins. At this point, the parties involved are invited to send additional information and evidence to support their positions.

Inadmissible 3,9%

Opposition Totally Rejected 12.4%

EUTM Application Partially Refused

12.5%

EUTM ApplicationTotally Refused

8.2%

Admissible96,1%

Resolved duringCooling-Off Period63.0%

Types of Outcomes for Opposition Filings

27

Opposition Division Decisionson Admissible Filings that reached the end of Adversarial Proceedings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010

OPPOSITION TOTALLY REJECTEDEUTM APPLICATION PARTIALLY REFUSED

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EUTM APPLICATION TOTALLY REFUSED

38,5% 38,6% 36,7% 38,5% 38,8% 37,1% 35,0% 37,4% 35,6% 36,5%

40,5% 41,1% 43,9% 40,8% 38,6% 39,2%36,9% 29,4% 27,5% 28,5%

21,1% 20,3% 19,4% 20,7% 22,6% 23,6%28,1% 33,2% 36,9% 35,0%

Even though the overall timeliness of opposition decisions can be influenced by the extent of the COP, the EUIPO has spent the last decade working on the continuous improvement and streamlining of all the operational tasks associated with proceedings, while also comprehensively investing in the training and development of qualified examiners and decision takers. These coordinated efforts contributed to sustained reductions in the timeliness of opposition decisions (vis-à-vis 2010) and a decrease of 16.5% (3.8 months) when comparing the 2019 and 2010 average timeliness figures.

From 2010 to 2019, on average approximately 3.5 out of every ten opposition filings that were decided upon by the Opposition Division were totally rejected, with the respective EUTM applications proceeding to registration. Three out of every ten decisions ended with the EUTM applications being totally refused, while the remaining 3.5 decisions led to partial refusals and the consequent removal of the conflicting goods and/or services from the applications, which were subsequently registered. However, more recently there has been a reduction in partial refusals and an associated increase in total refusals.

16

20

2423.1

18.0 18.1

19.9

17.7 17.7

19.420.0

19,719.3

TIMELINESS: FROM OPPOSITION FILING TO OPPOSITION DECISION

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(3.8 months)Reduction in time from Opposition Filing to Decision 2019 vs 201016.5%


28

7.2 Opposition Languages

7.3 Top 10 Opposition Countries

The Opposition Division of the EUIPO uses the five languages of the Office (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish). The Notice of Opposition may only be filed in one of these languages and the language must also coincide with one of the two languages chosen by the applicant for the EUTM, as indicated upon publication of the application in the EUTM Bulletin. This language will then be used throughout the opposition proceedings.

82.3% of all opposition filings from 2010 to 2019 were initiated by third parties from the Top 10 opponent countries. Germany tops the ranking, accounting for 25.5% of filings, although the average annual growth rate for the country during the last decade was actually slightly negative (-1.1%). Spain´s second position, with a 15.7% share of the total, denotes a local Intellectual Property community of owners and representatives that is especially active in vigilance and litigation actions, given its higher standing in this ranking, as set against the filings and registrations rankings, where it occupies the fifth overall position.

The vast majority of opposition filings during the last decade were done so in English, which incrementally increased its 2010 share over the following nine years. Italian grew slightly, going from 1.2% in 2010 to 1.5% in 2019. French suffered sustained reductions, particularly in the second half of the last decade, decreasing from 4.5% in 2010 to 2.8% in 2019, while the reduction in Spanish was slightly less pronounced, going from 4.4% to 4.0%. German maintained its second position throughout the decade, though it also suffered a downturn from 11.4% in 2010 to 7.9% in 2019.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010

ENGLISH GERMAN

78,5% 78,7% 79,4% 80,4% 80,9% 81,0% 82,5%83,3%

82,9%83,7%

7,9%7,9%8,7%8,9%9,7%9,4%10,2%11,4%11,3%11,4%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SPANISH FRENCH ITALIAN

Evolution of Opposition Filings by Top 10 Opponent Countries(third parties that oppose EUTM applications)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SWITZERLAND

GERMANY UNITED STATES FRANCEUNITED KINGDOM

ITALY PORTUGAL

SPAIN

NETHERLANDS SWEDEN

Opposition Filings2019 vs 2010

Opposition Filings2019 vs 2010

-10.7%

+45.2%



-1.1%

4.5%

29

Share of Total Opposition Filings by Opponent Countries(third parties that oppose EUTM applications)

Evolution of Opposition Filings against Top 10 Opposed Countries(EUTM applicants opposed by third parties)

Opposition filings from France experienced high growth, with a 4.5% average annual rate and 45.2% more filings in 2019 than in 2010. Although the majority of the Top 10 opponent countries coincide with the filing and registration rankings, Portugal and Sweden respectively occupy the eight and tenth positions in this particular listing. However, the behaviour of these two nations during the period concerned was different. Opposition filings from Sweden increased at an average annual rate of 1.6%, while filings from Portugal decreased on average 1.4% per annum.

Opposition volumes against the majority of the Top 10 opposed countries remained relatively stable, with observed cumulative average variations of less than 2%. Opposition filings against applicants from Italy increased slightly, while filings opposing applicants from the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, France and the Netherlands decreased marginally.

70.4% of all opposition filings from 2010 to 2019 were filed against the Top 10 opposed countries, which coincide with the Top 10 Global EUTM filing countries from the same period. Germany also tops this ranking, accounting for 16.0% of opposed EUTM applications, although the average share for the country during the last decade decreased annually at a rate of 1.3%, with 13.5% less opposed EUTM filings in 2019 versus 2010.

OtherOpponentCountries

17.7%

Top 10OpponentCountries82.3% Switzerland 3,5%

Portugal 2,8%

Germany 25,5%

Italy 4,9%

USA 10,1%France 7,4%

UK 8,0%

Spain15,7%

Netherlands 2,7%

Sweden 1,7%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

POLAND SWITZERLAND


FRANCE


CHINA

SPAIN

NETHERLANDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Opposed Applications2019 vs 2010

Opposed Applications2019 vs 2010

+704.8%

+35.4%



28.3%

4.0%


30

Opposition filings against Chinese applications had the highest growth, with a 28.3% average annual rate and 704.8% more opposed EUTM filings in 2019 than in 2010. These extremely high figures are directly linked to the remarkable growth rate in overall applications from China during the last decade. Opposition volumes against Polish applications also increased significantly, likewise being strongly interrelated with the observed growth in overall applications from Poland, which rounded out the Global Top 10 filing countries ranking in tenth place.

Share of Total Opposition Filings against Opposed Countries (EUTM applicants opposed by third parties)

OtherOpponentCountries

17.7%

Top 10OpponentCountries82.3%

Switzerland 2,8%Germany 16,0%

Italy 8,5%

USA 9,2%France 5,5%

UK 9,6%

China 3,7%

Poland 2,9%

Spain 8,5%

Netherlands 3,6%

OtherClasses

32.2%

Top 10Classes67.8%

29 4.0%

3 3.7%35 12.0%

25 7.9%

9 11.0%

30 5.1% 42 8.7%

5 4.3%

41 7.0%

16 4.1%

7.4 Top 10 Opposition Classes

The strong correlation between EUTM class filings and EUTM class registrations extends into the Top 10 classes included in opposition filings, which contains nine of the ten classes that constitute the other two rankings, with the only change in composition being the replacement of Class 38 (Telecommunications) by Class 29 (Food of Animal Origin). The first and second positions are again occupied by Class 35 (Advertising; Business Administration) and Class 9 (Electrical Apparatus; Computers), although the classes switch places in this particular ranking.

Share of Total Classes included in Opposition Filings

31

Class 25 (Clothing; Footwear) moves up from fifth place in the class filings and class registrations rankings, where it has approximately 4.5% of the total, to fourth place in the class oppositions ranking, being included in 7.9% of all opposition filings. A similar pattern occurs with regard to Class 30 (Food of Plant Origin), going from 2.6% of class filings and 2.5% of class registrations to 5.1% of class oppositions. These higher opposition rates may be related to more proactive Intellectual Property rights vigilance activities in the agro-industrial and commercial sectors in question.

Rank Class Abbreviated Nice Class Headings 4 %

1 35 Advertising; Business Management 12.0%

2 09 Electrical Apparatus; Computers 11.0%

3 42 Scientific & Technological Services 8.7%

4 25 Clothing; Footwear 7.9%

5 41 Education; Sporting and Cultural Activities 7.0%

6 30 Food of Plant Origin 5.1%

7 05 Pharmaceutical Preparations 4.3%

8 16 Paper; Printed Matter; Office Requisites 4.1%

9 29 Food of Animal Origin 4.0%

10 03 Cleaning Preparations; Cosmetics 3.7%

- - Other Classes 32.2%

- - All Classes 100.0%


available in Annex


32

8. EUTM CANCELLATIONS

The EUTM Regulation provides for two types of procedure that come under the generic term of ‘cancellation proceedings’. The rights of the owner of a EUTM can be revoked and a EUTM can be declared invalid. The difference is that revocation applies as from the date of the request, whereas a declaration of invalidity removes the registration from the EUTM Register with retroactive effect.

However, the cancellation rate of EUTM registrations during the last decade remained quite stable, with less than 1/10th of 1% of all active registrations being cancelled on any given year. This reflects the low absolute volume of cancellations vis-à-vis in force EUTM registrations.

The rights of the proprietor of an EUTM can be revoked in the absence of genuine use (the law establishes that a EUTM must be put to genuine use in the European Union in the five years following its registration) or if, in consequence of the acts of the owner, the trade mark has become the common name for a product or service for which it is registered or has become misleading as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods and/or services for which it is registered.

There are two types of grounds for invalidity: absolute and relative. Absolute grounds for invalidity include the grounds for refusal that have been examined ex officio during the registration procedure. Relative grounds for invalidity concern earlier rights that take precedence over the EUTM in accordance with the principle of ‘priority’.

During the last decade, more than 16,000 cancellation actions were filed against EUTM registrations, with an average annual growth rate of 10.1% and an overall growth rate of 119.1% when comparing the 2019 and 2010 filing figures. The fact that these rates are much higher than those observed for EUTM filings, registrations and oppositions can be interpreted as an indication that investors in Intellectual Property rights are particularly attentive to the effective use of registered trade marks in the EU market space and are therefore willing to take the initiative when they consider that certain marks should not have been registered or have not been genuinely or properly used.

8.1 Cancellation Volumes, Rates & Timeliness

956

1399

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

11001270

1407

2050 19551823

2113 2095

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EUTM Cancellation Filings2010 to 201916,168

0,00%

0,05%

0,10%

0,04%

0,05% 0,05%

0,06%

0,05%

0,09%

0,06% 0,05%

0,04%

0.04%

CANCELLATION RATE

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

33

(3.7 months)Reduction in time from Cancellation Filing to Decision2019 vs 2010

20.0%

6

7

8

9

YEARS

7,0 7,1

7,0

7,6

7,6

8,2

7,2

7,8

6,6

7,2

AVERAGE AGE OF CANCELLED EUTM

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

12

15

18

21

MONTHS

15,8

18,3

15,1

16,1

13,5

13,9

13,5

15,1

14,3

14,7

TIMELINESS: FROM CANCELLATION FILING TO CANCELLATION DECISION TAKEN

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

While the rejection rate of cancellation filings remained relatively stable throughout the last ten years, the percentage of withdrawn filings increased approximately 5% during the last few years, with the same behaviour being observed for full cancellation decisions. The opposite tendency was registered for partial cancellation decisions, which dropped from 22.2% of total outcomes in 2010 to 16.3% by 2019.

The average age of cancelled EUTM registrations between 2010 and 2019 was 7.3 years. This figure is aligned with the EUTM Regulation, which only permits revocation actions after trade marks have been registered for at least five years.

The previously mentioned efforts by the EUIPO regarding the enhanced efficiency of operational tasks and the continuous training and development of qualified staff also apply to cancellation proceedings and decision taking. As was similarly observed in the positive evolution of the timeliness of opposition decisions, these concerted actions contributed to a significant reduction in the average time from filing to decision for cancellation actions, which decreased at an average rate of 2.1% per annum.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20190%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%22%

Withdrawn Rejected Partial Cancellation Full Cancellation

22%

16%

41%

26%

16%

12%

46%

Types of Outcomes for Cancellation Filings


34

The distribution of the languages used in cancellation proceedings follows a similar pattern to that observed in opposition proceedings during the relevant period.

The vast majority of filings were done in English, which varied it share during the last ten years from a low of 68.4% in 2012 to a high of 80.1% in 2015, with an average share of 74.8%.

75.1% of all cancellation filings from 2010 to 2019 were filed against the Top 10 countries, which includes eight of the Top 10 EUTM filing countries from the same period, with the only changes in composition being the replacement of China and Poland by Austria and Belgium. Actions against EUTM registrations from the top four countries in the ranking (Germany, United States, United Kingdom and Spain) in fact accounted for 51.3% of all cancellation filings.

Italian grew slightly, from 2.1% in 2010 to 3.1% in 2019. Spanish also demonstrated modest growth, going from 3.1% at the beginning of the last decade to 3.8% in 2019, while French suffered a 0.5% decline.

German preserved its second position throughout the ten years, although it suffered a 1.6% downturn, decreasing from 16.4% in 2010 to 14.8% in 2019.

8.2 Cancellation Languages

8.3 Top 10 Cancellation Countries

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010

ENGLISH GERMAN2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SPANISH FRENCH ITALIAN

73,2% 75,5% 68,4% 74,3% 75,4% 80,1% 79,7%71,7%

75,7%73,7%

16,4% 14,1% 21,5%15,9% 15,2% 11,5% 11,6%

15,9%13,7% 14,8%

0

100

50

200

150

250

350

300

450

400

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SWITZERLAND


FRANCE


BELGIUM

SPAIN

NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA

Cancellation Actions2019 vs 2010

Cancellation Actions2019 vs 2010

+200.0%

+58.7%



17.9%

10.5%

Evolution of Cancellation Filings against Top 10 Countries(owners of EUTM subjected to Cancellation actions)

35

All Top 10 countries registered robust average annual growth rates during the last decade, mostly between 10% and 20%. Additionally, they all had at least 50% more cancellation filings in 2019 than in 2010.

The strong correlation between the different EUTM class rankings also includes the Top 10 cancellation classes, which contains the vast majority of classes that compose the other rankings, with the only variation being the inclusion of Class 18 (Leather Goods; Luggage). The first and second positions are again occupied by Class 9 (Electrical Apparatus; Computers) and Class 35 (Advertising; Business Administration).

OtherCountries

24.9%

Top 10 Countries75.1% Switzerland 3,9%

Germany 19.4%

Italy 6,3%

USA 12.4%

France 5,4%

UK 10.1%

Austria 2,3%Austria 2,1%

Spain 9,5%

Netherlands 3,7%

Share of Total Cancellation Filings(owners of EUTM subjected to Cancellation actions)

Share of Total Classes included in Cancellation Filings

8.4 Top 10 Cancellation Classes

OtherClasses

51.1%

Top 10Classes48.9%

9 7.9%

35 7.4%

25 6.0%

42 4.8% 41 4.7%

16 4.5%

3 3.7%

18 3.8%

30 3.2%38 3.0%


36

Rank Class Abbreviated Nice Class Headings 5 %

1 09 Electrical Apparatus; Computers 7.9%

2 35 Advertising; Business Management 7.4%

3 25 Clothing; Footwear 6.0%

4 42 Scientific & Technological Services 4.8%

5 41 Education; Sporting and Cultural Activities 4.7%

6 16 Paper; Printed Matter; Office Requisites 4.5%

7 03 Cleaning Preparations; Cosmetics 3.7%

8 18 Leather Goods; Luggage 3.8%

9 30 Food of Plant Origin 3.2%

10 38 Telecommunications 3.0%

- - Other Classes 51.1%

- - All Classes 100.0%

5 - Full Nice Class Headings available in Annex

As was the case with the opposition classes ranking, Class 25 (Clothing; Footwear) moves up from fifth place in the class filings and registrations rankings, where it has approximately 4.5% of the total, to a higher position in the cancellation classes ranking, being included in 6.0% of all cancellation filings. Along with the presence of Class 18 in the Top 10 list, this pattern corroborates the notion that enterprises which operate in the clothing, footwear and apparel sectors are very proactive in Intellectual Property rights vigilance activities.

37

9. EUTM RENEWALS

A European Union Trade Mark is valid for a 10 year period that starts on the respective filing date. It can be renewed indefinitely, for 10 years at a time. Six months before expiry of the registration, the EUIPO will inform the owner, their representative or any other registered right-holder(s), in writing, that the registration is due for renewal.

is important to note that this ratio only applies to the volume of registrations that were subjected to a first renewal, as opposed to the total amount of EUTM registrations that were filed in 1999. Additionally, registrations that were originally filed in 2009 became eligible for their first renewal. Of these, 51.0% were renewed.

A request for renewal can be made and the fee for renewal paid in the six-month period prior to the expiry date of the registration. The latest possible date for requesting the renewal and paying the fee is the expiry date of the trade mark. An additional six-month grace period for renewal starts on the day following the date of expiry. During this period an additional fee of 25% will be charged.

If no request for renewal is submitted, or it is submitted after expiry of the grace period, the EUIPO will inform the EUTM owner in writing that the trade mark has been cancelled and removed from the Register, and a notice will be published in the EUTM Bulletin.

The renewal rate for a given year represents the proportion of EUTM registrations that were renewed vis-à-vis the total volume of EUTM registrations filed 10 years before. In 2019, EUTM registrations that were originally filed in 1999 and were still in force after being initially renewed in 2009 became eligible for their second renewal. Of these, 65.4% were renewed. It

9.1 Renewal Volumes & Rates

EUTM Renewals

EUTM Renewal Rates

EUTM Renewals2010 to 2019353,212

1st Renewals 2nd Renewals

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

18.575

21,765 20,904 21,380

28,389 28,174 30,426

52,26148,049

49,940 51,924

8.955 9.876 11.815

33,68639,094 40,064 40,109

1st Renewals 2nd Renewals

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

79,1%

55,2%58,8% 59,8% 57,0% 54,1%

51,3%

30,8%

73,5%66,2% 64,7% 65,4%

51,7% 52,6% 51,0%

0

20

40

60

80

100


38

9.2 Top 10 Renewal Countries

The Top 10 countries for EUTM renewals accounted for 81.4% of all renewal filings and include the vast majority of the Top 10 registrations countries, as well as Japan and Sweden. The observed increase in the total number of renewals since 2016 is explained by introduction of second renewals. This occurrence, however, did not have a substantial impact on the share distribution of the Top 10 countries for EUTM renewals, as the U.S., Germany and the U.K. continue to represent almost 50% of all renewals for the 2010-2019 period.

All Top 10 renewal countries registered positive average annual growth rates (AAG), with the United Kingdom at the low end of the growth spectrum (13.1% AAG) and the Netherlands at the top (24.7% AAG). The vast majority of countries averaged approximately 17% annual growth.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

SWEDENJAPANSWITZERLAND


FRANCE

UNITED KINGDOM ITALY SPAIN

NETHERLANDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

OtherCountries

18.6%

Top 10Countries81.4%

Switzerland 3,5%

Germany 18.7%

Italy 8,1%

USA 18.4%

France 7,1%

UK 9,8%Spain 7,2%

Japan 3,2%

Netherlands 3,4%

Sweden 2,1%

Yearly Evolution of EUTM Renewals by Top 10 Renewal Countries

Share of Total EUTM Renewals

39

9.3 Top 10 Renewal Classes

The observed connexion between the different EUTM class rankings also encompasses renewals, as only one novelty joins the aggregated list of the most popular classes, with Class 7 (Machines; Motors & Engines) representing 3.1% of all renewed classes during the last decade.

Share of Total Class Renewals

Yearly Evolution of Top 10 Class Renewals

OtherClasses

50.1%

Top 10Classes49.9%

07 3.1%30 2.8%

09 9.7%

16 5.3%

35 6.5%

25 4.4%

42 6.3%

05 3.7%

41 4.8%

03 3.3%

Class Renewals2010 to 2019

Of allClass Renewals

Top 10 ClassesAccounted for929,405 49.9%

Rank Class Abbreviated Nice Class Headings 6 Volume

1 09 Electrical Apparatus; Computers 90,108

2 35 Advertising; Business Management 60,083

3 42 Scientific & Technological Services 58,101

4 16 Paper; Printed Matter; Office Requisites 49,652

5 41 Education; Sporting and Cultural Activities 44,624

6 25 Clothing; Footwear 40,919

7 05 Pharmaceutical Preparations 34,380

8 03 Cleaning Preparations; Cosmetics 30,994

9 07 Machines; Motors & Engines 29,000

10 30 Food of Plant Origin 26,237

- - Other Classes 465,307

- - All Classes 929,405


available in Annex


40

10. EUTM IN FORCE1.6 million European Union Trade Mark registrations, containing more that 4.4 million associated goods and services classes, were in force on January 1st, 2020.

In Force European Union Trade Marks by Filing Year

0

100,000

By Filling Year

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

2019, 134,719

Total in Force1,600,434

2018, 135,335

2017; 119,912

2016; 129,404

2015; 121,843

2014; 112,848

2013; 109,084

2012; 104,550

2011; 101,531

2010; 95,683

2009; 85,147

2008; 60,537

2006; 33,2732005; 28,377

2004; 28,339

2003; 29,0172002; 21,369

2001; 20,8002000; 21,689

41

11. ANNEX

CLASS Nice Class Headings

3 Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices.

5Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes; dietetic food and substances adapted for medical or veterinary use, food for babies; dietary supplements for humans and animals; plasters, materials for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.

7Machines and machine tools; Motors and engines [except for land vehicles]; Machine coupling and transmission components [except for land vehicles]; Agricultural implements other than hand-operated; Incubators for eggs; Automatic vending machines

9

Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; compact discs, DVDs and other digital recording media; mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment, computers; computer software; fire-extinguishing apparatus.

16

Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks.

18Leather and imitations of leather; Animal skins and hides; Luggage and carrying bags; Umbrellas and parasols; Walking sticks; Whips, harness and saddlery; Collars, leashes and clothing for animals

25 Clothing, footwear, headgear.

29 Meat, fish, poultry and game; Meat extracts; Preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; Jellies, jams, compotes; Eggs; Milk and milk products; Edible oils and fats

30Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.

35 Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions.

38 Telecommunications.

41 Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.

42 Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software.

EUIPO Trade Mark Focus2010 to 2019 Evolution

EUIPO Trade Mark Focus...computers and/or scientific and technological services experienced...

Documents

Transcript of EUIPO Trade Mark Focus...computers and/or scientific and technological services experienced...