karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei

Workshop at Startup Week Düsseldorf

Kai Daniel Klein — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:29:34 +0000

Our firm will be taking part in the programme for Startup Week Düsseldorf on 11 September 2026 with our own workshop.

Entitled ‘Identifying Valuable IP in Tech Start-ups’, the event is aimed at founders and start-up teams who wish to develop and bring to market technical, digital or computer-implemented products.

The focus is on how young companies can identify intangible assets at an early stage and make effective use of them. Particularly in the case of technology-driven business models, protectable content often arises as early as the initial development phase – for example, in technical concepts, data structures, trade marks or the teams’ know-how.

It is therefore particularly important to address IP issues at an early stage. Certain intellectual property rights may be irretrievably lost through pitches and other forms of publication if suitable measures have not been taken beforehand. This makes it all the more important for start-ups to recognise potential IP in the first place.

The workshop will be led by patent attorneys from our firm and is designed for up to 12 participants. In addition to a practical introduction to relevant intellectual property rights such as patents, trade marks and designs, the main focus will be on positioning IP as a strategic asset for financing, market entry, partnerships and growth.

Following the workshop, there will be an opportunity for discussion and networking at our offices.

Further information on Startup Week Düsseldorf, the programme and registration will be published on the event website: https://startupweek-dus.com/de/event/werthaltige-ip-in-tech-startups-erkennen/

Der Beitrag Workshop at Startup Week Düsseldorf erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

EPO Fees to Increase on April 1, 2026 — Key Fee Comparison and Practical Impact Analysis

Dr. Yingkun Brunner — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 17:23:31 +0000

The European Patent Office’s (EPO) biennial fee increase is approaching. The EPO has officially announced adjustments to multiple official fees effective April 1, 2026. Most core fees will rise by approximately 5%, while certain fees remain unchanged.
For applicants preparing to file European applications or planning their annual fee strategies, these adjustments will directly impact costs during the application phase, budgets for the examination phase, and long-term maintenance expenses.

1. Key Features of This Price Adjustment
Most key procedural fees increase by approximately 5%;
Certain fees (e.g., online filing fees, opposition fees, appeal fees) remain unchanged;
All renewal fees (starting from the third year) have been systematically increased;
Fees paid before April 1, 2026, remain subject to the old rates. Under EPO regulations, annual fees may be paid up to three months in advance. This means any annual fee due by the end of June 2026 can be paid at the current rates before the end of March.

2. Key Official Fee Adjustment Comparison (Before vs. After April 1, 2026)

1) Fees for Application and Examination Stages

Item	Before Adjustment (€)	After Adjustment (€)	Change
Online Application Fee	135	135	Unchanged
Europe/Supplementary Search Fee	1,520	1,595	↑Approx. 5%
Designation Fee	685	720	↑Approx. 5%
Substantive Examination Fee	1,915	2,010	↑Approx. 5%
Grant and Publication Fee	1,080	1,135	↑Approx. 5%

(Source: EPO published fee schedule)

2) Claim surcharge

Item	Before Adjustment (€)	After Adjustment (€)	Change
Claims beyond the scope fee (Claims 16–50)	275 /claim	290 /claim	↑Approx. 5%

3) Opposition and Appeal Fees (Remain Unchanged)

Fees for oppositions and appeals remain unchanged.

4) Annual Fees (Increase effective from the 3rd year)

Annual	Before adjustment (€)	Adjusted (€)
Year 3	690	725
Year 4	845	885
Year 5	1,000	1,050
Year 6	1,155	1,215
Year 7	1,310	1,375
Year 8	1,465	1,540
Year 9	1,620	1,700
Year 10-20 (annual)	1,775	1,865

3. Practical Impact on Applicants

The total cost of European applications will increase, with rises in search fees, examination fees, and authorization fees. This means that the official costs for a single standard European application will increase by approximately €200–300 (excluding agent fees).

4. Clear “Early Payment Strategy Window” Emerges

The EPO has clarified that paying due fees before April 1, 2026, will avoid the increases.

Therefore, in Q1 2026, it is recommended to prioritize evaluating:

Whether to prepay examination fees
Whether to prepay annual fees
Whether to enter the European phase early

For applications where a decision has been made to enter the European phase, it is advisable to complete the entry procedures before April 1. This can save between two hundred and three hundred euros in official fees.

Der Beitrag EPO Fees to Increase on April 1, 2026 — Key Fee Comparison and Practical Impact Analysis erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

The Latest Judicial Interpretation of “First Marketing Authorisation” under the SPC Regulation

Dr. Yingkun Brunner — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 15:19:03 +0000

In recent years, the interpretation of the term “first marketing authorisation” in Article 3(d) of the EU Supplementary Protection Certificate Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, hereinafter the SPC Regulation) has given rise to significant divergence in European judicial practice and has triggered ongoing legal controversy.

Under Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation, one of the prerequisites for the grant of an SPC is that the relevant “product” (i.e. the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients) must not previously have obtained a marketing authorisation as a medicinal product in the European Union. Once any earlier marketing authorisation exists for the same product, a subsequent authorisation will, in principle, no longer qualify as a “first marketing authorisation”. A series of recent cases has centred precisely on the interpretation of this provision.

I. Factual Background of the Boehringer Case

Boehringer Ingelheim has recently attracted considerable attention in the pharmaceutical and patent community as a result of two parallel decisions relating to its SPC application activities.

The essential facts of the case may be summarised as follows:

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH applied for an SPC for its product Aservo® EquiHaler®, on the basis of its European patent EP 2 934 479 (entitled “Ciclesonide for the Treatment of Respiratory Diseases in Horses”) and a veterinary medicinal product marketing authorisation (MA) granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020. This marketing authorisation was issued pursuant to Directive 2001/82/EC (the Veterinary Medicinal Products Directive).

It is noteworthy that this was the first veterinary marketing authorisation in the EU for a medicinal product containing ciclesonide as the active ingredient. During the marketing authorisation procedure, the EMA classified ciclesonide as a “new active substance” within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, and on that basis required the applicant to submit a full set of clinical data.

II. The Decision of the District Court of The Hague: Strict “Product-Centred Formalism”

As anticipated, the SPC application met with differing outcomes in different Member States. The decision of the District Court of The Hague is particularly noteworthy.

The Hague court refused to grant an SPC based on the above-mentioned veterinary MA, on the ground that:

prior to that veterinary MA, a human medicinal product marketing authorisation based on the same active ingredient, ciclesonide, already existed.

The core reasoning of the court may be summarised as follows:

The definition of “product” in Article 1(b) of the SPC Regulation refers exclusively to the active ingredient as such, and does not encompass the intended use, therapeutic indication, or regulatory classification (human or veterinary).
Once an active ingredient has previously been the subject of a marketing authorisation, irrespective of whether that authorisation concerns a human or a veterinary medicinal product, the requirement of a “first marketing authorisation” under Article 3(d) is no longer fulfilled.
The assessment of whether an authorisation constitutes a “first marketing authorisation” is a normative issue of patent law, falling within the competence of patent authorities and courts, and not within the remit of medicinal product regulatory authorities.

This decision reflects a highly formalistic approach that relies exclusively on the concept of the “product” as the sole decisive criterion.

III. Referral of the German Case: The Question Returns to the Court of Justice

Boehringer also filed a corresponding SPC application in Germany. In 2023, the application was initially rejected by the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) on the ground of non-compliance with Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation, for the same reason, namely that:

another company had already obtained a marketing authorisation in 2005 for a human medicinal product containing ciclesonide (for the treatment of asthma).

The applicant appealed against this decision. By decision of 12 December 2025, the 14th Senate of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) stayed the national proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product granted under Directive 2001/82/EC constitutes the first marketing authorisation of that product as a medicinal product, even if the same active ingredient of that product has previously been authorised as a human medicinal product under Directive 2001/83/EC?

IV. The Shadow of the Neurim and Santen Case Law

Readers familiar with SPC case law will readily recall the landmark judgment of the CJEU in Neurim (C-130/11, 2012).

The factual sequence in Neurim was the reverse of the present case:

Neurim concerned a veterinary MA followed by a human MA (melatonin for the treatment of human sleep disorders), whereas the Boehringer case involves a human MA followed by a veterinary MA. Substantively, however, the two situations are highly comparable, in that:

a known active ingredient was classified by the EMA as a “new active substance” under a different regulatory pathway and requires submission of full clinical data.

In Neurim, the CJEU held that, for the purposes of Article 3(d), it is necessary to examine whether the earlier marketing authorisation covered the same therapeutic use as that protected by the basic patent. On that basis, the Court allowed the grant of an SPC based on a second medical use human MA.

However, this “scope-of-protection-oriented” approach was expressly abandoned by the CJEU in Santen (C-673/18, 2020). In Santen, the Court reverted to a strict product-centred interpretation, rejecting the possibility of granting SPCs based solely on new therapeutic indications.

Importantly, the Santen judgment did not address the following specific scenario:

namely, how Article 3(d) should be applied where a known active ingredient is nevertheless classified by the regulatory authority as a “new active substance”, thereby triggering a full, stand-alone marketing authorisation procedure.

V. The Position of the German Court and Systemic Considerations

In its referral decision, the German Federal Patent Court clearly tends to regard the veterinary MA at issue as a “first marketing authorisation” within the meaning of Article 3(d), despite the existence of an earlier human MA.

This position is primarily based on the legislative purpose of the SPC system, in particular:

clinical data generated under Directive 2001/83/EC (human medicinal products) generally cannot be directly relied upon to accelerate authorisation procedures under Directive 2001/82/EC (veterinary medicinal products), and vice versa;
denying SPC protection solely because of the existence of an earlier human or veterinary MA may, in practice, lead to genuine gaps in protection;
such an interpretation may also undermine incentives for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development in cross-sector areas (human/veterinary).

VI. Conclusion: Awaiting Further Clarification from the Court of Justice

The referral by the German court provides the CJEU with an important opportunity to further systematise and clarify its case law between the Neurim and Santen lines of authority.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, the decision is likely to have implications far beyond the individual case and will significantly influence future SPC applications across the EU in situations involving the interaction between human and veterinary medicinal products.

Der Beitrag The Latest Judicial Interpretation of “First Marketing Authorisation” under the SPC Regulation erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

Quantum Technology on the Rise: Patent Activity Increases Fivefold – Strategic Implications for Companies

Michael Schirmuly — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:15:56 +0000

Quantum technologies are among the technological fields of the future with the strongest innovation momentum at present. A recent analysis by the European Patent Office (EPO) shows that:

The number of international patent families in the field of quantum technology has increased fivefold within a decade.

This development is a clear signal to companies, start-ups, and research institutions: patents are increasingly becoming a strategic competitive factor in the quantum field.

What does the European Patent Office’s analysis show?

The EPO examines innovation dynamics using so-called international patent families (IPFs) – i.e., inventions for which patent applications have been filed in at least two countries. These are considered particularly meaningful for economically relevant technologies.

The key findings:

Massive growth: Since around 2015, the number of quantum technology IPFs has increased fivefold.
Three technological focal points:
- Quantum computing and quantum simulation
- Quantum communication
- Quantum sensor technology and metrology
Shift in innovation focus: While quantum communication initially dominated, quantum computer-related developments are becoming increasingly important.

These figures prove that quantum technology is no longer just basic research, but is increasingly gaining industrial relevance.

Why is this particularly challenging in terms of intellectual property law?

Quantum technology inventions often operate at the interface between:

physics (e.g., quantum states, entanglement),
computer science (algorithms, error correction),
hardware (semiconductors, cryogenics, sensor technology),
and classical engineering.

This poses particular challenges in terms of patent law. A sound technical and legal understanding is therefore crucial for the success of a patent application.

Strategic consequences for companies and applicants

Frühzeitige Patentstrategie entwickeln

The sharp increase in applications increases the risk of overlaps. Early patent landscape and FTO analyses are therefore indispensable.

Consider international property rights

The high number of international patent families shows that:
Relevant quantum innovations are being specifically protected internationally, often via European and PCT patent applications.

Intellectual property protection for collaborations

Many quantum technology inventions arise from cooperation between industry and science. Clear regulations on inventorship, IP ownership, and commercialization rights are essential.

Conclusion: Quantum technology requires excellent patent expertise

The fivefold increase in patent activity documented by the EPO underscores the enormous momentum of quantum technologies.

For companies, this means that without strategically smart patent applications, they risk long-term competitive disadvantages.

In this highly complex technical environment in particular, the combination of in-depth technical understanding and precise patent law expertise is crucial for robust property rights.

We support you as a patent law firm in patenting, strategy development, and portfolio design in the field of quantum technology – with a solid technical foundation and a European and international focus.

Der Beitrag Quantum Technology on the Rise: Patent Activity Increases Fivefold – Strategic Implications for Companies erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

EPO’s Latest Measures to Accelerate European Patent Examination

Dr. Yingkun Brunner — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:33:48 +0000

It is widely known that the European Patent Office’s (EPO) patent examination pace has slowed significantly since the pandemic, causing considerable frustration for applicants and their patent attorneys. Even more discouraging is that inquiries about case processing timelines often yield only relatively optimistic estimates, while the EPO’s “PACE” accelerated examination program rarely delivers results that truly meet applicants’ expectations. The EPO’s stated goal of responding to applicant submissions within three months has, in practice, become difficult to achieve on schedule and is now almost the norm.

However, according to the EPO’s latest Strategic Plan 2028, the EPO plans to accelerate the examination process by adjusting the handling procedures for status inquiries and their integration with the PACE program. These changes will take effect on February 1, 2026. Below, we provide a detailed explanation of these modifications.

European Patent Office Notice on PACE Adjustments

PACE (Program for Accelerated Prosecution of European Patent Applications) is an accelerated examination procedure launched by the EPO in 2015¹. Applicants may request it free of charge.

On December 16, 2025, the EPO issued an updated notice regarding the PACE program, replacing the version implemented since 2015². This revision stems from the EPO’s sustained efficiency gains in the search phase in recent years: by 2024, the average time for issuing European search reports (or partial search reports) had been reduced to approximately 5.5 months. Building on this sustained efficiency gain, the EPO has adjusted the PACE program to allocate resources more effectively.

The most significant change is that, effective February 1, 2026, the PACE program will apply exclusively to the examination phase and no longer to the search phase. Accordingly, EPO Form 1005 will be used solely for requesting accelerated examination and will no longer include an option for accelerated search.

PACE remains an acceleration mechanism requiring an applicant’s active written request, which must be submitted via the official EPO online Form 1005. Informal or paper-based requests will not be accepted. Each application may submit only one PACE request during the examination phase. PACE requests are not made public and are not accessible to the public.

Applications will be removed from the PACE program and cannot be reinstated under the following circumstances:

Withdrawal of the PACE request;
Request by the applicant for an extension of time;
Rejection, withdrawal, or deemed withdrawal of the application;
Failure to pay annual fees on time (which will result in suspension of the accelerated procedure).

The EPO explicitly states that accelerated examination is provided only where practically feasible and is subject to the workload of the examining divisions. In other words, the EPO imposes no mandatory requirements on the examination process for PACE requests. The extent of acceleration depends on the examiner’s own workload. Even for identical PACE requests, the degree of acceleration may vary across different technical fields. For applicants who frequently or extensively submit PACE requests, the EPO reserves the right to require them to limit the number of requests.

There is no official fee for PACE requests. When PACE is effective, the EPO aims to issue examination opinions within the following timeframes:

Issue the next examination opinion within 3 months from the date the Examining Division takes over the case, the applicant submits a response, or a PACE request is filed (whichever is later);
Subsequent examination correspondence is generally completed within 3 months of receiving the applicant’s response.

For Euro-PCT applications:

If the EPO also acts as the International Searching Authority (ISA), accelerated examination may generally be requested upon entry into the European phase or upon submission of the Rule 161(1) EPC response;

Even when requesting early entry into the European phase under PCT Article 23(2) or 40(2), a separate PACE request must be filed for the EPO to conduct accelerated examination.

The revised PACE program takes effect on February 1, 2026, applying to PACE requests filed on or after that date. Concurrently, rules regarding “removal from PACE” and “suspension of accelerated processing” will apply to all pending applications from that date forward.

Overall, these amendments reflect the EPO’s policy orientation to concentrate accelerated resources on the examination phase, aiming to enhance the predictability and overall efficiency of accelerated examination while preventing abuse of accelerated requests.

European Patent Office Notice on Case Status Inquiries³

Under specific circumstances during patent application examination, applicants may inquire about case processing progress through their European patent attorneys to understand when new examination reports will be issued, particularly when examination procedures remain stagnant for extended periods.

Unlike the PACE accelerated examination program, submitting a progress inquiry does not imply overall acceleration of the European patent application examination process.

In light of the following developments, the EPO has adjusted its practices for handling progress inquiries:

Continued significant improvement in the timeliness of issuing European search reports (supplementary search reports) and opinions on patentability;
Revision of the conditions for applying the PACE program²;
Completion of the search phase for all European patent applications filed before July 1, 2014 (including PCT applications entering the European phase where the EPO was not acting as (S)ISA), as previously notified.

All applicants in EPO first-instance proceedings may submit progress inquiries.

Submission of Progress Inquiries

The EPO will process and respond to progress inquiries only if submitted online using EPO Form 1012. Each inquiry may concern only one application or one patent.

The EPO will issue a timely acknowledgment of receipt.

Inquiry documents and EPO responses form part of the case file and are therefore accessible to the public.

Processing of Status Inquiries

Generally, the EPO will indicate in its response the anticipated timeframe for the next action, taking into account the workload in the relevant technical field and internal deadlines for completing pending matters. The EPO will endeavor to complete the relevant action within the timeframe specified in its response.

Certain factors may affect the processing time for status inquiries. For example, failure to pay the annual fee by the due date specified in Article 51(1) of the European Patent Convention may result in delayed processing of the inquiry.

For status inquiries concerning:

applications being processed under the PACE program, or
applications for which an inquiry has already been submitted and no examination opinion has been issued within the set time limit,

the EPO will automatically issue the next official action within one month of receiving the inquiry.

The EPO will closely monitor whether the next action is issued by the set date.

If the applicant is dissatisfied with the timetable indicated in the response, they may accelerate the examination procedure by requesting application of the PACE program.

Effective Date

This new procedure applies to status inquiries submitted on or after February 1, 2026. This notice replaces the European Patent Office’s Notice concerning the processing of inquiries on the progress of cases (OJ EPO 2016, A66) published on August 2, 2016.

1) OJ EPO 2015, A93: https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2025/12/a69

2) Notice from the European Patent Office dated December 16, 2025 concerning the program for accelerated prosecution of European patent applications (“PACE”): https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2025/12/a69

3) Notice from the European Patent Office dated December 16, 2025 concerning the handling of inquiries regarding file processing: https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2025/12/a70

Der Beitrag EPO’s Latest Measures to Accelerate European Patent Examination erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

IPO of CF PharmTech

Matthias Rößler — Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:48:06 +0000

Successful IPO for CF PharmTech

karo IP supports IPO with IP expertise

On October 8, 2025, one of our clients, the pharmaceutical company CF PharmTech (headquartered in Suzhou, China), successfully completed its listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE).

Our client is a fully integrated pharmaceutical company focused on the research, development, manufacturing, and marketing of drugs and devices for the treatment of respiratory diseases. The company’s core product is Budesonide Suspension (CF017), a drug for the treatment of asthma and COPD that is included in China’s volume-based procurement program. In addition, the company has other products and a pipeline of innovative therapies, including RNAi therapies and small molecule drugs.

The IPO was heavily oversubscribed and the share price rose significantly on the first day of trading, reflecting strong investor interest in the company’s focus on the treatment of respiratory diseases and its path to profitability.

We are very pleased to have been asked to support our client’s IPO with various searches, valuations and opinions on patents, utility models and trademarks in the European territories, thus contributing to the successful IPO of CF PharmTech and its further successful path on the European market.

Der Beitrag IPO of CF PharmTech erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

We continue to develop and move, together with our team, to the city center of Düsseldorf on 1st July, 2024

Matthias Rößler — Mon, 01 Jul 2024 11:22:04 +0000

We are thus creating the conditions for networked and modern work on IP strategy, IP rights, dispute avoidance and litigation. Our new head office at Steinstraße 16-18 is located in the immediate vicinity of our friends, colleagues and experts in patent and trademark law and thus in the IP center of the city and NRW.

For you as our clients there will be no changes. Because it is self-evident that we continue to stick to those principles that you have valued for many years when working with us: reliability, plain text, and creativity.

We continue to remain an IP-Boutique for prosecution and litigation, which develops customized protective concepts for your intellectual property, accomplishes the necessary tasks for securing IP protection reliably and efficiently, and finds the best solution for special problems as well.

We are certain that we can offer our services in the future with even more transparency, open-mindedness and joy in our common work with patents, utility models, trademarks and designs.

From now on you and our co-workers will be able to get to us by public transportation more conveniently. Our contribution to modern office creations.

We, the team of karo IP, look forward to moving on together with you.

Please feel free to talk to us if you have questions, or visit us in our new office on Steinstrasse.

Der Beitrag We continue to develop and move, together with our team, to the city center of Düsseldorf on 1st July, 2024 erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

The Legal 500 Deutschland 2024

Matthias Rößler — Thu, 01 Feb 2024 16:09:30 +0000

[February 2024] karo IP is again recommended in the recently published Legal 500 Deutschland patent law ranking.

Legal 500 writes: “Karo IP zeichnet sich neben der umfangreichen Betreuung deutscher und europäischer Mandanten durch einen ausgewiesenen geographischen Fokus auf Japan und China aus. Die Mandatsarbeit in den Bereichen Maschinenbau sowie Automobil- und Fahrzeugtechnik gehört dabei zu den Beratungsschwerpunkten von Matthias Rößler […] sowohl in der Verwaltung von Portfolios als auch der Durchsetzung und Verteidigung von Schutzrechten aktiv sind.”

Mandanten sagen: ‘Zuverlässige und schnelle Bearbeitung der Themen. Sehr gut strukturierte Kanzlei.’ | ‘karo IP besitzt als Patentanwaltskanzlei sowohl eine sehr hohe technologische als auch juristische und wirtschaftliche Kompetenz.’

Der Beitrag The Legal 500 Deutschland 2024 erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders 2024

Matthias Rößler — Wed, 01 Nov 2023 16:20:08 +0000

[November 2023] In the newly published ranking IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders, which presents experts from law firms, companies, research institutions and universities who are leaders in the development and implementation of IP strategies, patent attorney Matthias Rößler is again recommended.
In September 2023, the ranking The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2023 was published by IAM Strategy 300, on the basis of which the publisher selects “Global Leaders” at the end of the year.

Der Beitrag IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders 2024 erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.

Trademarks as an indication of origin

Matthias Rößler — Fri, 06 Oct 2023 12:29:39 +0000

Trademarks as an indication of origin

Brand names and logos are associated with companies and their products. An advertising slogan is an equally decisive factor for recognition or origin.

Famous slogans that have been successfully registered as EU trademarks include “Just do it” (Nike), “Think different” (Apple), “Vorsprung durch Technik” (Audi) or “i’m lovin it” (McDonalds).

In order to register slogans as trademarks, it must be proven that they are not only descriptive or laudatory of the goods and services, but often also that they are sufficiently different from the usual signs of other companies.

Protect advertising slogans

Applicants who wish to register a slogan as a trademark in the trademark register must therefore prove its distinctiveness. In addition, a slogan must not be descriptive, which means that it must not describe either the nature or the intended purpose of the goods or services applied for.

However, assessing the distinctiveness of a slogan is not always easy in practice.

Such slogans can be excluded from registration due to lack of distinctiveness if they are perceived by the usual customers only as a positive advertising message, but not as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services.

It should also be noted that the examination of whether a slogan is distinctive must take place separately for each product or service. A slogan may be registrable for certain products, but not for others.

What can increase the likelihood of success for trademark registration of a slogan?

Distinctiveness of slogans

The chance that a slogan will be regarded or judged as distinctive (and thus protectable under trademark law) is regularly increased if it follows several of the following guidelines:

The slogan should be short.
It should allow for multiple meanings and thus room for interpretation regarding its meaning.
He should have a special originality and conciseness.
It should have a play on words or unusual linguistic or stylistic devices.

The more of these specifications apply to the slogan, the greater the chance of being able to have the slogan protected as a trademark.

Registration of slogans as an EU trademark

The central application for an EU trademark (also EU trademark) is made through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

If the Office determines during the examination of the application that there are no absolute grounds for refusal (such as lack of distinctiveness), the slogan can be registered in the trademark register in the corresponding class of goods and/or services.

Caution: The Office does not check whether a conflict with already existing trademarks is caused in connection with the trademark application. The application for a slogan should always be preceded by a preliminary search to rule out the possibility that identical or similar slogans exist as trademarks. (See also: Relevance of a preliminary trademark search, 5/2019).

The application grants the owner unitary, EU-wide trademark protection. If no opposition is filed within 3 months of registration, the applicant is considered the trademark owner, whose trademark enjoys protection for 10 years. After this period, the trademark protection can be renewed for another 10 years at a time.

Der Beitrag Trademarks as an indication of origin erschien zuerst auf karo IP | Patentanwaltskanzlei.