Rapporten EP over voorstellen nieuwe merkenverordening en merkenrichtlijn

REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (COM(2013)0161 – C7-0087/2013 – 2013/0088(COD)).

"The community trade mark system and OHIM has existed for over 15 years and it is reasonable to do a review of the existing rules to improve a system which has been a great success. During these years OHIM has grown into a well functioning and effective agency with a clear view of its mission to assist the trade mark and design community in Europe. The addition of new tasks such as the Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights and the databases on orphan works is a proof of the trust placed in the Agency both by the co-legislators and by the commission.

The current review requires, in the view of your rapporteur, that changes to the governance of OHIM be made with a view to guaranteeing the continued independence, user-friendliness and competence that has characterised the Agency so far. [...]

The name of the Agency
Your rapporteur notes that the current name of the Agency, "Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market", is well known and established among the trade marks community in Europe and beyond. It is however not a name that is particularly logical for anyone without prior knowledge of the office seeking to register a trade mark or a design. The current revision would thus seem to be a good opportunity to rename the Agency. The name proposed by the Commission ("European Union Trade Marks and Designs Agency") does not however cover the broad range of tasks entrusted with the Agency. The Agency already hosts the Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights as well as the register of recognised orphan works. In the future one could also envisage additional functions, such as the registration of geographical indicators and possible tasks in connection with the upcoming legislative proposal on the protection of trade secrets, being added to the tasks of the Agency.
It would therefore be useful to find an appropriate long-term name for the Agency that can stand the test of time while giving clarity to the users on its tasks. Your rapporteur therefore proposes to rename the Agency the "European Union Intellectual Property Agency"."

Lees hier meer.

REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (recast) (COM(2013)0162 – C7-0088/2013 – 2013/0089(COD)).

"The directive harmonising certain aspects of trade mark law of the Member States of the European Union has existed for over 20 years. The present review provides an opportunity to learn from best practices and further strengthen the harmonizing aspects of substantive trade mark law and procedures used by national trade mark offices. [...]

Some users want to seek the protection only in one Member State whilst some want to seek unitary protection in the 28 member states of the Union. It should however be noted that there are also many users that depend on using the national system for protection in several different Member States. This could for example be the case for users that are not able to get
an EU trade mark because of prior existing rights in one or several Member States. It could also be the very conscious choice of a company active in a small number of countries or in a border region.

In order to assist these users which are relying on the services of multiple national offices for their protection it is reasonable to harmonize procedures so that the users are not forced to deal with completely different procedural approaches in the different Member States where they wish to seek protection. Although the fees, notably at OHIM, make up an important component of the choice of strategy for where a trade mark is registered, there are many other factors at play as well.

The focus on implementing best practices for procedures and substantive law should be to make national trade mark systems more attractive for users. For this reason it would also be reasonable to harmonize a number of additional procedural aspects that would improve the  situation for users protecting their trade marks in multiple national offices.

Whilst having a generally positive outlook on harmonization it also has to be noted that some of the proposals of the Commission go too far in that they disregard the territorial nature of the protection offered. Other proposals need clarifications to ensure that important features, notably to SMEs, are preserved."

Lees hier meer.