Navigating Conflicts Between EU Trademarks and National Trademarks: Legal Frameworks and Resolution Mechanisms
Introduction
The European Union’s trademark system, established under the EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR), provides businesses with a unified mechanism to protect trademarks across all 27 member states through a single registration—the European Union Trade Mark (EUTM). However, this system coexists with national trademark regimes, creating potential conflicts when overlapping rights arise between an EUTM and a domestic trademark. This article examines the legal principles governing such conflicts, explores resolution mechanisms, and highlights practical considerations for rights holders.
1. The Coexistence of EUTMs and National Trademarks
The EUTM system operates on the principle of “unitary character,” granting equal protection across the EU. However, national trademarks remain governed by individual member states’ laws. Conflicts typically arise in two scenarios:
- Prior National Rights vs. Later EUTM Registrations: A national trademark registered before an EUTM may block the latter’s validity in that member state.
- Earlier EUTM vs. Later National Marks: An EUTM holder may challenge a subsequently registered national trademark that infringes on its rights.
Such overlaps often stem from territoriality—a core principle of trademark law—where rights are geographically limited unless harmonized by supranational frameworks like the EUTMR.
2. Legal Frameworks for Conflict Resolution
a. Priority and Seniority Rights
The EUTMR recognizes the priority of earlier rights. Under Article 8(2), a national trademark owner may oppose or invalidate an EUTM if the latter’s use would infringe their prior rights in at least one member state. Conversely, EUTM holders can invoke their EU-wide rights to oppose conflicting national registrations.
Additionally, EUTM applicants may “claim seniority” by incorporating pre-existing national trademarks into their EUTM, effectively extinguishing the national mark while retaining its priority date.
b. Grounds for Opposition and Invalidity
- Relative Grounds: Conflicts are assessed based on likelihood of confusion, reputation dilution, or bad faith. For example, if a national mark is well-known in a member state, an identical EUTM may be refused or invalidated in that jurisdiction.
- Bad Faith Registrations: Courts and the EUIPO may refuse marks filed to exploit the reputation of a prior national right.
c. Territorial Limitations and Genuine Use
An EUTM risks revocation if not genuinely used in the EU within five years. However, non-use in specific member states does not invalidate the EUTM entirely. National trademark owners may leverage this to challenge EUTMs in jurisdictions where the EU mark is unused.
3. Jurisdictional Challenges and Enforcement
Enforcing rights across borders requires navigating complex jurisdictional rules:
- Infringement Actions: EUTM holders may sue in any member state where infringement occurs, while national rights are enforceable only domestically.
- Forum Shopping: The EU Trademark Court system allows plaintiffs to choose courts with favorable precedents, though judgments apply EU-wide.
Case Example: In Coty Germany GmbH v. Harman International Industries, Inc. (C-230/16), the CJEU clarified that EUTM rights cannot be restricted territorially, emphasizing the balance between EU-wide protection and national rights.
4. Coexistence Agreements and Strategic Solutions
To avoid litigation, parties often negotiate coexistence agreements, delineating territories or sectors for each mark’s use. Such contracts must comply with competition law to prevent anticompetitive practices.
Proactive Measures for Businesses:
- Conduct comprehensive clearance searches across EU and national registers.
- Prioritize EUTM filings while securing critical national registrations in key markets.
- Monitor both EUIPO and national trademark databases for conflicting applications.
5. Post-Brexit Implications
Following Brexit, UK trademarks no longer fall under the EUTM system. Businesses must now manage separate UK and EUTM registrations, increasing the complexity of conflict resolution in the region.
Conclusion
The interplay between EUTMs and national trademarks reflects the broader tension between EU integration and member state sovereignty. While the EUTMR provides tools to resolve conflicts—such as opposition procedures, invalidation actions, and coexistence agreements—rights holders must adopt a strategic, jurisdictionally aware approach. As the EU continues to refine its intellectual property landscape, harmonizing these systems remains critical to fostering innovation and fair competition.
Share this page
