Article 135 
Boards of Appeal 1. The Boards of Appeal shall be responsible for deciding on appeals from decisions of the examiners, Opposition Divisions, Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division and Cancellation Divisions. 2. The decisions of the Boards of Appeal shall be taken by three members, at least two of whom are legally qualified. In certain specific cases, decisions shall be taken by an enlarged Board chaired by the President of the Boards of Appeal or by a single member, who must be legally qualified. 3. In order to determine the special cases which fall under the jurisdiction of the enlarged Board, account should be taken of the legal difficulty or the importance of the case or of special circumstances which justify it. Such cases may be referred to the enlarged Board: (a) by the authority of the Boards of Appeal set up in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Boards referred to in Article 162(3); or (b) by the Board handling the case. 4. The composition of the enlarged Board and the rules on referrals to it shall be laid down pursuant to the rules of procedure of the Boards referred to in Article 162(3). 5. To determine which specific cases fall under the authority of a single member, account should be taken of the lack of difficulty of the legal or factual matters raised, the limited importance of the individual case or the absence of other specific circumstances. The decision to confer a case on one member in the cases referred to shall be adopted by the Board handling the case. Further details shall be laid down in the rules of procedure of the Boards referred to in Article 162(3).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 135 Boards of Appeal):
1. The Boards of Appeal shall be responsible for deciding on appeals from decisions taken pursuant to Articles 131 to 134a. 2. The decisions of the Boards of Appeal shall be taken by three members, at least two of whom are legally qualified. In certain specific cases, decisions shall be taken by the Grand Board chaired by the Executive Director of the Boards of Appeal or by a single member, who must be legally qualified. 3. In order to determine the special cases which fall under the jurisdiction of the Grand Board, account should be taken of the legal difficulty or the importance of the case or of special circumstances which justify it. Such cases may be referred to the Grand Board: (a) by the authority of the Boards of Appeal referred to in Article 136(4)(a); or (b) by the Board handling the case. 4. The Grand Board shall also be responsible for giving reasoned opinions on questions of law referred to it by the Executive Director pursuant to Article 128(4)(l). 5. To determine which specific cases fall under the authority of a single member, account should be taken of the lack of difficulty of the legal or factual matters raised, the limited importance of the individual case or the absence of other specific circumstances. The decision to confer a case on one member in the cases referred to shall be adopted by the Board handling the case.
Article 136 
Independence of the members of the Boards of Appeal 1. The President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairmen of the Boards shall be appointed, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 125 for the appointment of the President of the Office, for a term of five years. They may not be removed from office during this term, unless there are serious grounds for such removal and the Court of Justice, on application by the institution which appointed them, takes a decision to this effect. The term of office of the President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairmen of the Boards may be renewed for additional five-year periods, or until retirement age if this age is reached during the new term of office. The President of the Boards of Appeal shall, inter alia , have managerial and organisational powers, principally to: (a) chair the authority of the Boards of Appeal responsible for laying down the rules and organising the work of the Boards, which authority is provided for in the rules of procedure of the Boards referred to in Article 162(3); (b) ensure the implementation of the authority's decisions; (c) allocate cases to a Board on the basis of objective criteria determined by the authority of the Boards of Appeal; (d) forward to the President of the Office the Boards' expenditure requirements, with a view to drawing up the expenditure estimates. The President of the Boards of Appeal shall chair the enlarged Board. Further details shall be laid down in the rules of procedure of the Boards referred to in Article 162(3). 2. The members of the Boards of Appeal shall be appointed by the Administrative Board for a term of five years. Their term of office may be renewed for additional five-year periods, or until retirement age if that age is reached during the new term of office. 3. The members of the Boards of Appeal may not be removed from office unless there are serious grounds for such removal and the Court of Justice, after the case has been referred to it by the Administrative Board on the recommendation of the President of the Boards of Appeal, after consulting the chairman of the Board to which the member concerned belongs, takes a decision to this effect. 4. The President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal shall be independent. In their decisions they shall not be bound by any instructions. 5. The President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal may not be examiners or members of the Opposition Divisions, Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division or Cancellation Divisions.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 136 Independence of the members of the Boards of Appeal):
1. The President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairpersons of the Boards shall be appointed, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 129 for the appointment of the Executive Director, for a term of five years. They shall not be removed from office during this term, unless there are serious grounds for such removal and the Court of Justice, on application by the institution which appointed them, takes a decision to this effect. 2. The term of office of the President of the Boards of Appeal may be extended once for one additional five-year period, or until retirement age if this age is reached during the new term of office, after a prior positive evaluation of his performance by the Management Board. 3. The term of office of the chairpersons of the Boards may be extended for additional five-year periods, or until retirement age if this age is reached during the new term of office, after a prior positive evaluation of their performance by the Management Board, and after consulting the President of the Boards of Appeal. 4. The President of the Boards of Appeal shall have the following managerial and organisational functions: (a) chairing the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal (‘the Presidium’), responsible for laying down the rules and organising the work of the Boards; (b) ensuring the implementation of the decisions of the Presidium; (c) allocating cases to a Board on the basis of objective criteria determined by the Presidium; (d) forwarding to the Executive Director the Boards' expenditure requirements, with a view to drawing up the expenditure estimates. The President of the Boards of Appeal shall chair the Grand Board. 5. The members of the Boards of Appeal shall be appointed by the Management Board for a term of five years. Their term of office may be extended for additional five-year periods, or until retirement age if that age is reached during the new term of office after a prior positive evaluation of their performance by the Management Board, and after consulting the President of the Boards of Appeal. 6. The members of the Boards of Appeal shall not be removed from office unless there are serious grounds for such removal and the Court of Justice, after the case has been referred to it by the Management Board on the recommendation of the President of the Boards of Appeal, and after consulting the chairperson of the Board to which the member concerned belongs, takes a decision to this effect. 7. The President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairpersons and members of the Boards of Appeal shall be independent. In their decisions, they shall not be bound by any instructions. 8. Decisions taken by the Grand Board on appeals or opinions on questions of law referred to it by the Executive Director pursuant to Article 135 shall be binding on the decision-making instances of the Office referred to in Article 130. 9. The President of the Boards of Appeal and the chairpersons and members of the Boards of Appeal shall not be examiners or members of the Opposition Divisions, the Department in charge of the Register or Cancellation Divisions.
Article 137 
Exclusion and objection 1. Examiners and members of the Divisions set up within the Office or of the Boards of Appeal may not take part in any proceedings if they have any personal interest therein, or if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties. Two of the three members of an Opposition Division shall not have taken part in examining the application. Members of the Cancellation Divisions may not take part in any proceedings if they have participated in the final decision on the case in the proceedings for registration or opposition proceedings. Members of the Boards of Appeal may not take part in appeal proceedings if they participated in the decision under appeal. 2. If, for one of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1 or for any other reason, a member of a Division or of a Board of Appeal considers that he should not take part in any proceedings, he shall inform the Division or Board accordingly. 3. Examiners and members of the Divisions or of a Board of Appeal may be objected to by any party for one of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1, or if suspected of partiality. An objection shall not be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objection, the party has taken a procedural step. No objection may be based upon the nationality of examiners or members. 4. The Divisions and the Boards of Appeal shall decide as to the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 without the participation of the member concerned. For the purposes of taking this decision the member who withdraws or has been objected to shall be replaced in the Division or Board of Appeal by his alternate.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 137 Exclusion and objection):
1. Examiners and members of the Divisions set up within the Office or of the Boards of Appeal may not take part in any proceedings if they have any personal interest therein, or if they have previously been involved as representatives of one of the parties. Two of the three members of an Opposition Division shall not have taken part in examining the application. Members of the Cancellation Divisions may not take part in any proceedings if they have participated in the final decision on the case in the proceedings for registration or opposition proceedings. Members of the Boards of Appeal may not take part in appeal proceedings if they participated in the decision under appeal. 2. If, for one of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1 or for any other reason, a member of a Division or of a Board of Appeal considers that he should not take part in any proceedings, he shall inform the Division or Board accordingly. 3. Examiners and members of the Divisions or of a Board of Appeal may be objected to by any party for one of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 1, or if suspected of partiality. An objection shall not be admissible if, while being aware of a reason for objection, the party has taken a procedural step. No objection may be based upon the nationality of examiners or members. 4. The Divisions and the Boards of Appeal shall decide as to the action to be taken in the cases specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 without the participation of the member concerned. For the purposes of taking this decision the member who withdraws or has been objected to shall be replaced in the Division or Board of Appeal by his alternate.
Article 138 
Budget Committee 1. A Budget Committee is hereby set up, attached to the Office. The Budget Committee shall have the powers assigned to it in this Section and in Article 38(4). 2. Articles 126(6), 127, 128 and 129(1) to (4), (6) and (7) shall apply to the Budget Committee mutatis mutandis . 3. The Budget Committee shall take its decisions by a simple majority of the representatives of the Member States. However, a majority of three-quarters of the representatives of the Member States shall be required for the decisions which the Budget Committee is empowered to take under Articles 38(4), 140(3) and 143. In both cases each Member State shall have one vote.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 138 Budget Committee):
1. The Budget Committee shall have the functions assigned to it in this Section. 2. Articles 125 and 126, Article 127(1) to (4), and (5), in so far as it relates to the election of the chairperson and deputy chairperson, (6) and (7) shall apply to the Budget Committee, mutatis mutandis . 3. The Budget Committee shall take its decisions by an absolute majority of its members. However, a majority of two-thirds of its members shall be required for the decisions which the Budget Committee is empowered to take under Article 140(3) and Article 143. In both cases each member shall have one vote.
Article 139 
Budget 1. Estimates of all the Office's revenue and expenditure shall be prepared for each financial year and shall be shown in the Office's budget, and each financial year shall correspond with the calendar year. 2. The revenue and expenditure shown in the budget shall be in balance. 3. Revenue shall comprise, without prejudice to other types of income, total fees payable under the fees regulations, total fees payable under the Madrid Protocol referred to in Article 140 of this Regulation for an international registration designating the European Community and other payments made to Contracting Parties to the Madrid Protocol, total fees payable under the Geneva Act referred to in Article 106c of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs ( 10 ) for an international registration designating the European Community and other payments made to Contracting Parties to the Geneva Act, and, to the extend necessary, a subsidy entered against a specific heading of the general budget of the European Communities, Commission section.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Article 140 
Preparation of the budget 1. The President shall draw up each year an estimate of the Office's revenue and expenditure for the following year and shall send it to the Budget Committee not later than 31 March in each year, together with a list of posts. 2. Should the budget estimates provide for a Community subsidy, the Budget Committee shall immediately forward the estimate to the Commission, which shall forward it to the budget authority of the Communities. The Commission may attach an opinion on the estimate along with an alternative estimate. 3. The Budget Committee shall adopt the budget, which shall include the Office's list of posts. Should the budget estimates contain a subsidy from the general budget of the Communities, the Office's budget shall, if necessary, be adjusted.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 140 Preparation of the budget):
1. The Executive Director shall draw up each year an estimate of the Office's revenue and expenditure for the following year and shall send it to the Budget Committee not later than 31 March in each year, together with a list of posts. 2. Should the budget estimates provide for a Union subsidy, the Budget Committee shall immediately forward the estimate to the Commission, which shall forward it to the budget authority of the Union . The Commission may attach an opinion on the estimate along with an alternative estimate. 3. The Budget Committee shall adopt the budget, which shall include the Office's list of posts. Should the budget estimates contain a subsidy from the general budget of the Union , the Office's budget shall, if necessary, be adjusted.
Article 141 
Audit and control 1. An internal audit function shall be set up within the Office, to be performed in compliance with the relevant international standards. The internal auditor, appointed by the President, shall be responsible to him for verifying the proper operation of budget implementation systems and procedures of the Office. 2. The internal auditor shall advise the President on dealing with risks, by issuing independent opinions on the quality of management and control systems and by issuing recommendations for improving the conditions of implementation of operations and promoting sound financial management. 3. The responsibility for putting in place internal control systems and procedures suitable for carrying out his tasks shall lie with the authorising officer.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 141 Audit and control):
1. An internal audit function shall be set up within the Office, to be performed in compliance with the relevant international standards. The internal auditor, appointed by the Executive Director , shall be responsible to him for verifying the proper operation of budget implementation systems and procedures of the Office. 2. The internal auditor shall advise the Executive Director on dealing with risks, by issuing independent opinions on the quality of management and control systems and by issuing recommendations for improving the conditions of implementation of operations and promoting sound financial management. 3. The responsibility for putting in place internal control systems and procedures suitable for carrying out his tasks shall lie with the authorising officer.
Article 142 
Auditing of accounts 1. Not later than 31 March in each year the President shall transmit to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Budget Committee and the Court of Auditors accounts of the Office's total revenue and expenditure for the preceding financial year. The Court of Auditors shall examine them in accordance with Article 248 of the Treaty. 2. The Budget Committee shall give a discharge to the President of the Office in respect of the implementation of the budget.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 142 Auditing of accounts):
1. Not later than 31 March in each year the Executive Director shall transmit to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Budget Committee and the Court of Auditors accounts of the Office's total revenue and expenditure for the preceding financial year. The Court of Auditors shall examine them in accordance with Article 248 of the Treaty. 2. The Budget Committee shall give a discharge to the Executive Director of the Office in respect of the implementation of the budget.
Article 143 
Financial provisions The Budget Committee shall, after consulting the Court of Auditors of the European Communities and the Commission, adopt internal financial provisions specifying, in particular, the procedure for establishing and implementing the Office's budget. As far as is compatible with the particular nature of the Office, the financial provisions shall be based on the financial regulations adopted for other bodies set up by the Community.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 143 Financial provisions):
The Budget Committee shall, after consulting the Court of Auditors of the Union and the Commission, adopt internal financial provisions specifying, in particular, the procedure for establishing and implementing the Office's budget. As far as is compatible with the particular nature of the Office, the financial provisions shall be based on the financial regulations adopted for other bodies set up by the Union .
Article 144 
Fees regulations 1. The fees regulations shall determine in particular the amounts of the fees and the ways in which they are to be paid. 2. The amounts of the fees shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is in principle sufficient for the budget of the Office to be balanced. 3. The fees regulations shall be adopted and amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 163(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Article 145 
Application of provisions Unless otherwise specified in this title, this Regulation and its Implementing Regulations shall apply to applications for international registrations under the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks, adopted at Madrid on 27 June 1989 (hereafter referred to as ‘international applications’ and ‘the Madrid Protocol’ respectively), based on an application for a Community trade mark or on a Community trade mark and to registrations of marks in the international register maintained by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (hereafter referred to as ‘international registrations’ and ‘the International Bureau’, respectively) designating the European Community.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 145 Application of provisions):
Unless otherwise specified in this title, this Regulation and its Implementing Regulations shall apply to applications for international registrations under the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks, adopted at Madrid on 27 June 1989 (hereafter referred to as ‘international applications’ and ‘the Madrid Protocol’ respectively), based on an application for an EU trade mark or on an EU trade mark and to registrations of marks in the international register maintained by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (hereafter referred to as ‘international registrations’ and ‘the International Bureau’, respectively) designating the Union .
Article 146 
Filing of an international application 1. International applications pursuant to Article 3 of the Madrid Protocol based on an application for a Community trade mark or on a Community trade mark shall be filed at the Office. 2. Where an international application is filed before the mark on which the international registration is to be based has been registered as a Community trade mark, the applicant for the international registration must indicate whether the international registration is to be based on a Community trade mark application or registration. Where the international registration is to be based on a Community trade mark once it is registered, the international application shall be deemed to have been received at the Office on the date of registration of the Community trade mark.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 146 Filing of an international application):
1. International applications pursuant to Article 3 of the Madrid Protocol based on an application for an EU trade mark or on an EU trade mark shall be filed at the Office. 2. Where an international application is filed before the mark on which the international registration is to be based has been registered as an EU trade mark , the applicant for the international registration must indicate whether the international registration is to be based on an EU trade mark application or registration. Where the international registration is to be based on an EU trade mark once it is registered, the international application shall be deemed to have been received at the Office on the date of registration of the EU trade mark .
Article 147 
Form and contents of the international application 1. The international application shall be filed in one of the official languages of the European Community, using a form provided by the Office. Unless otherwise specified by the applicant on that form when he files the international application, the Office shall correspond with the applicant in the language of filing in a standard form. 2. If the international application is filed in a language which is not one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol, the applicant must indicate a second language from among those languages. This shall be the language in which the Office submits the international application to the International Bureau. 3. Where the international application is filed in a language other than one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol for the filing of international applications, the applicant may provide a translation of the list of goods or services in the language in which the international application is to be submitted to the International Bureau pursuant to paragraph 2. 4. The Office shall forward the international application to the International Bureau as soon as possible. 5. The filing of an international application shall be subject to the payment of a fee to the Office. In the cases referred to in the second sentence of Article 146(2), the fee shall be due on the date of registration of the Community trade mark. The application shall be deemed not to have been filed until the required fee has been paid. 6. The international application must fulfil the relevant conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 147 Form and contents of the international application):
1. The international application shall be filed in one of the official languages of the Union , using a form provided by the Office. Unless otherwise specified by the applicant on that form when he files the international application, the Office shall correspond with the applicant in the language of filing in a standard form. 2. If the international application is filed in a language which is not one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol, the applicant must indicate a second language from among those languages. This shall be the language in which the Office submits the international application to the International Bureau. 3. Where the international application is filed in a language other than one of the languages allowed under the Madrid Protocol for the filing of international applications, the applicant may provide a translation of the list of goods or services in the language in which the international application is to be submitted to the International Bureau pursuant to paragraph 2. 4. The Office shall forward the international application to the International Bureau as soon as possible. 5. The filing of an international application shall be subject to the payment of a fee to the Office. In the cases referred to in the second sentence of Article 146(2), the fee shall be due on the date of registration of the EU trade mark . The application shall be deemed not to have been filed until the required fee has been paid. 6. The international application must fulfil the relevant conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulation. 9. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the exact form, including the elements thereof, to be used for the filing of an international application pursuant to paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2).
Article 148 
Recordal in the files and in the Register 1. The date and number of an international registration based on a Community trade mark application, shall be recorded in the files of that application. When the application results in a Community trade mark, the date and number of the international registration shall be entered in the Register. 2. The date and number of an international registration based on a Community trade mark shall be entered in the Register.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 148 Recordal in the files and in the Register):
1. The date and number of an international registration based on an EU trade mark application, shall be recorded in the files of that application. When the application results in an EU trade mark , the date and number of the international registration shall be entered in the Register. 2. The date and number of an international registration based on an EU trade mark shall be entered in the Register.
Article 149 
Request for territorial extension subsequent to the international registration A request for territorial extension made subsequent to the international registration pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol may be filed through the intermediary of the Office. The request must be filed in the language in which the international application was filed pursuant to Article 147.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 149 Request for territorial extension subsequent to international registration):
2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the detailed requirements regarding the request for territorial extension pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2).
Article 150 
International fees Any fees payable to the International Bureau under the Madrid Protocol shall be paid direct to the International Bureau.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 150 International fees):
Any fees payable to the International Bureau under the Madrid Protocol shall be paid direct to the International Bureau.
Article 151 
Effects of international registrations designating the European Community 1. An international registration designating the European Community shall, from the date of its registration pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or from the date of the subsequent designation of the European Community pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol, have the same effect as an application for a Community trade mark. 2. If no refusal has been notified in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of the Madrid Protocol or if any such refusal has been withdrawn, the international registration of a mark designating the European Community shall, from the date referred to in paragraph 1, have the same effect as the registration of a mark as a Community trade mark. 3. For the purposes of applying Article 9(3), publication of the particulars of the international registration designating the European Community pursuant to Article 152(1) shall take the place of publication of a Community trade mark application, and publication pursuant to Article 152(2) shall take the place of publication of the registration of a Community trade mark.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 151 Effects of international registrations designating the Union):
1. An international registration designating the Union shall, from the date of its registration pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or from the date of the subsequent designation of the Union pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol, have the same effect as an application for an EU trade mark . 2. If no refusal has been notified in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of the Madrid Protocol or if any such refusal has been withdrawn, the international registration of a mark designating the Union shall, from the date referred to in paragraph 1, have the same effect as the registration of a mark as an EU trade mark . 3. For the purposes of applying Article 9(3), publication of the particulars of the international registration designating the Union pursuant to Article 152(1) shall take the place of publication of an EU trade mark application, and publication pursuant to Article 152(2) shall take the place of publication of the registration of an EU trade mark .
Article 152 
Publication 1. The Office shall publish the date of registration of a mark designating the European Community pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or the date of the subsequent designation of the European Community pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol, the language of filing of the international application and the second language indicated by the applicant, the number of the international registration and the date of publication of such registration in the Gazette published by the International Bureau, a reproduction of the mark and the numbers of the classes of the goods or services in respect of which protection is claimed. 2. If no refusal of protection of an international registration designating the European Community has been notified in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of the Madrid Protocol or if any such refusal has been withdrawn, the Office shall publish this fact, together with the number of the international registration and, where applicable, the date of publication of such registration in the Gazette published by the International Bureau.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 152 Publication):
1. The Office shall publish the date of registration of a mark designating the Union pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or the date of the subsequent designation of the Union pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol, the language of filing of the international application and the second language indicated by the applicant, the number of the international registration and the date of publication of such registration in the Gazette published by the International Bureau, a reproduction of the mark and the numbers of the classes of the goods or services in respect of which protection is claimed. 2. If no refusal of protection of an international registration designating the Union has been notified in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of the Madrid Protocol or if any such refusal has been withdrawn, the Office shall publish this fact, together with the number of the international registration and, where applicable, the date of publication of such registration in the Gazette published by the International Bureau.
Article 153 
Seniority 1. The applicant for an international registration designating the European Community may claim, in the international application, the seniority of an earlier trade mark registered in a Member State, including a trade mark registered in the Benelux countries, or registered under international arrangements having effect in a Member State, as provided for in Article 34. 2. The holder of an international registration designating the European Community may, as from the date of publication of the effects of such registration pursuant to Article 152(2), claim at the Office the seniority of an earlier trade mark registered in a Member State, including a trade mark registered in the Benelux countries, or registered under international arrangements having effect in a Member State, as provided for in Article 35. The Office shall notify the International Bureau accordingly.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 153 Seniority):
1. The applicant for an international registration designating the Union may claim, in the international application, the seniority of an earlier trade mark registered in a Member State, including a trade mark registered in the Benelux countries, or registered under international arrangements having effect in a Member State, as provided for in Article 34. 2. The holder of an international registration designating the Union may, as from the date of publication of the effects of such registration pursuant to Article 152(2), claim at the Office the seniority of an earlier trade mark registered in a Member State, including a trade mark registered in the Benelux countries, or registered under international arrangements having effect in a Member State, as provided for in Article 35. The Office shall notify the International Bureau accordingly.
Article 154 
Examination as to absolute grounds for refusal 1. International registrations designating the European Community shall be subject to examination as to absolute grounds for refusal in the same way as applications for Community trade marks. 2. Protection of an international registration shall not be refused before the holder of the international registration has been allowed the opportunity to renounce or limit the protection in respect of the European Community or of submitting his observations. 3. Refusal of protection shall take the place of refusal of a Community trade mark application. 4. Where protection of an international registration is refused by a decision under this Article which has become final or where the holder of the international registration has renounced the protection in respect of the European Community pursuant to paragraph 2, the Office shall refund the holder of the international registration a part of the individual fee to be laid down in the Implementing Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Article 155 
Search 1. Once the Office has received a notification of an international registration designating the European Community, it shall draw up a Community search report as provided for in Article 38(1). 2. As soon as the Office has received a notification of an international registration designating the European Community, the Office shall transmit a copy thereof to the central industrial property office of each Member State which has informed the Office of its decision to operate a search in its own register of trade marks as provided for in Article 38(2). 3. Article 38(3) to (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis . 4. The Office shall inform the proprietors of any earlier Community trade marks or Community trade mark applications cited in the Community search report of the publication of the international registration designating the European Community as provided for in Article 152(1).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 155 Search):
1. Once the Office has received a notification of an international registration designating the Union , it shall draw up a Union search report as provided for in Article 38(1) provided that a request for a search report, pursuant to Article 38(1), is made to the Office within one month of the date of notification. 2. As soon as the Office has received a notification of an international registration designating the Union , the Office shall transmit a copy thereof to the central industrial property office of each Member State which has informed the Office of its decision to operate a search in its own register of trade marks as provided for in Article 38(2) provided that a request for a search report, pursuant to Article 38(2), is made to the Office within one month of the date of notification and the search fee is paid within the same period. 3. Article 38(3) to (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis . 4. The Office shall inform the proprietors of any earlier EU trade marks or EU trade mark applications cited in the Union search report of the publication of the international registration designating the Union as provided for in Article 152(1). This shall apply whether or not the holder of the international registration has requested to receive the EU search report, unless the proprietor of an earlier registration or application requests not to receive the notification.
Article 156 
Opposition 1. International registration designating the European Community shall be subject to opposition in the same way as published Community trade mark applications. 2. Notice of opposition shall be filed within a period of three months which shall begin six months following the date of the publication pursuant to Article 152(1). The opposition shall not be treated as duly entered until the opposition fee has been paid. 3. Refusal of protection shall take the place of refusal of a Community trade mark application. 4. Where protection of an international registration is refused by a decision under this Article which has become final or where the holder of the international registration has renounced the protection in respect of the European Community prior to a decision under this Article which has become final, the Office shall refund the holder of the international registration a part of the individual fee to be laid down in the Implementing Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 156 Opposition):
1. International registration designating the Union shall be subject to opposition in the same way as published EU trade mark applications. 2. Notice of opposition shall be filed within a period of three months which shall begin one month following the date of the publication pursuant to Article 152(1). The opposition shall not be considered as duly entered until the opposition fee has been paid. 3. Refusal of protection shall take the place of refusal of an EU trade mark application. 4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 163a specifying the procedure for the filing and examination of an opposition, including the necessary communications to be made to the International Bureau.
Article 157 
Replacement of a Community trade mark by an international registration The Office shall, upon request, enter a notice in the Register that a Community trade mark is deemed to have been replaced by an international registration in accordance with Article 4 bis of the Madrid Protocol.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 157 Replacement of an EU trade mark by an international registration):
The Office shall, upon request, enter a notice in the Register that an EU trade mark is deemed to have been replaced by an international registration in accordance with Article 4 bis of the Madrid Protocol.
Article 158 
Invalidation of the effects of an international registration 1. The effects of an international registration designating the European Community may be declared invalid. 2. The application for invalidation of the effects of an international registration designating the European Community shall take the place of an application for a declaration of revocation as provided for in Article 51 or for a declaration of invalidity as provided for in Article 52 or Article 53.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 158 Invalidation of the effects of an international registration):
1. The effects of an international registration designating the Union may be declared invalid. 2. The application for invalidation of the effects of an international registration designating the Union shall take the place of an application for a declaration of revocation as provided for in Article 51 or for a declaration of invalidity as provided for in Article 52 or Article 53. 4. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the details to be contained in the notification to be made to the International Bureau pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2).
Article 159 
Conversion of a designation of the European Community through an international registration into a national trade mark application or into a designation of Member States 1. Where a designation of the European Community through an international registration has been refused or ceases to have effect, the holder of the international registration may request the conversion of the designation of the European Community: (a) into a national trade mark application pursuant to Articles 112, 113 and 114; (b) into a designation of a Member State party to the Madrid Protocol or the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks, adopted at Madrid on 14 April 1891, as revised and amended (hereafter referred to as the ‘Madrid Agreement’), provided that on the date when conversion was requested it was possible to have designated that Member State directly under the Madrid Protocol or the Madrid Agreement. Articles 112, 113 and 114 shall apply. 2. The national trade mark application or the designation of a Member State party to the Madrid Protocol or the Madrid Agreement resulting from the conversion of the designation of the European Community through an international registration shall enjoy, in respect of the Member State concerned, the date of the international registration pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or the date of the extension to the European Community pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol if the latter was made subsequently to the international registration, or the date of priority of that registration and, where appropriate, the seniority of a trade mark of that State claimed under Article 153. 3. The request for conversion shall be published.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 159 Conversion of a designation of the Union through an international registration into a national trade mark application or into a designation of Member States):
1. Where a designation of the Union through an international registration has been refused or ceases to have effect, the holder of the international registration may request the conversion of the designation of the Union : (a) into a national trade mark application pursuant to Articles 112, 113 and 114; (b) into a designation of a Member State party to the Madrid Protocol, provided that on the date when conversion was requested it was possible to have designated that Member State directly under the Madrid Protocol. Articles 112, 113 and 114 of this Regulation shall apply. 2. The national trade mark application or the designation of a Member State party to the Madrid Protocol resulting from the conversion of the designation of the Union through an international registration shall enjoy, in respect of the Member State concerned, the date of the international registration pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or the date of the extension to the Union pursuant to Article 3 ter (2) of the Madrid Protocol, if the latter was made subsequent to the international registration, or the date of priority of that registration and, where appropriate, the seniority of a trade mark of that State claimed under Article 153 of this Regulation. 3. The request for conversion shall be published. 10. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying: (a) the details to be contained in the requests for conversion referred to in paragraphs 4 and 7; (b) the details to be contained in the publication of the requests for conversion pursuant to paragraph 3. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2).
Article 160 
Use of a mark subject of an international registration For the purposes of applying Article 15(1), Article 42(2), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 57(2), the date of publication pursuant to Article 152(2) shall take the place of the date of registration for the purpose of establishing the date as from which the mark which is the subject of an international registration designating the European Community must be put to genuine use in the Community.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 160 Use of a mark subject of an international registration):
For the purposes of applying Article 15(1), Article 42(2), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 57(2), the date of publication pursuant to Article 152(2) shall take the place of the date of registration for the purpose of establishing the date as from which the mark which is the subject of an international registration designating the Union must be put to genuine use in the Union .
Article 161 
Transformation 1. Subject to paragraph 2, the provisions applicable to Community trade mark applications shall apply mutatis mutandis to applications for transformation of an international registration into a Community trade mark application pursuant to Article 9 quinquies of the Madrid Protocol. 2. When the application for transformation relates to an international registration designating the European Community the particulars of which have been published pursuant to Article 152(2), Articles 37 to 42 shall not apply.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 1.1. General context and grounds for the proposal The laws of the Member States relating to trade marks were partially harmonised by Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, codified as Directive 2008/95/EC (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). Alongside and linked to the national trade mark systems, Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, codified as Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’), established a stand-alone system for the registration of unitary rights having equal effect throughout the EU. In that context the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) was set up to be responsible for registering and administering Community trade marks. A trade mark serves to distinguish the goods and services of a company. It is the mark through which a business can attract and retain customer loyalty, and create value and growth. The mark works in this case as an engine of innovation: the necessity to keep it relevant promotes investments in R & D, which leads in turn to a continuous process of product improvement and development. This dynamic process also has a favourable impact on employment. In an increasingly competitive environment, there has been a steady growth not only in the crucial role of trade marks for market success, but also in their commercial value and number. In 2012, a record number of Community trade mark applications were filed (over 107,900, against 98,217 in 2010 and 49,503 a decade earlier). OHIM also received its millionth application since starting operations in 1996 during 2011. This development has been accompanied by growing expectations on the part of stakeholders for more streamlined and high-quality trade mark registration systems, which are more consistent, publicly accessible and technologically up-to-date. In 2007, when addressing the issue of the financial perspectives of OHIM, the Council[1] emphasised that the establishment of OHIM had been a great success and that it had contributed substantially to strengthening the competitiveness of the EU. It recalled that the Community trade mark system had been designed to co-exist with the national trade mark systems which continued to be necessary for those undertakings which did not want their trade marks protected at EU level. The Council further noted the importance of the complementary work of national trade mark offices, and called on OHIM to expand its cooperation with them in the interest of the overall functioning of the Community trade mark system. Last, it acknowledged that more than a decade had passed since the creation of the Community trade mark, and underlined the need for an overall assessment of the functioning of the Community trade mark system. It invited the Commission to start work on a corresponding study, in particular, with a view to intensifying and broadening the existing instruments of cooperation between OHIM and national trade mark offices. In its 2008 Small Business Act[2] the Commission pledged to make the Community trade mark system more accessible to SMEs. Furthermore, the 2008 Communication on an Industrial Property Rights Strategy for Europe[3] underlined the Commission’s commitment to effective and efficient trade mark protection and to a trade mark system of high quality. It concluded that it was time for an overall evaluation which could form the basis for a future review of the trade mark system in Europe and for the further improvement of cooperation between OHIM and National Offices. In 2010, in the Communication on Europe 2020, under the Flagship Initiative ‘Innovation Union’, the Commission undertook to modernise the framework of trade marks in order to improve framework conditions for business to innovate[4]. Finally, in its 2011 IPR strategy for Europe[5], the Commission announced a review of the trade mark system in Europe with a view to modernising the system, both at EU and at national level, by making it more effective, efficient and consistent overall. 1.2. Aim of the proposal Considered together as a package, the main common objective of this initiative and of the parallel proposal for recast of the Directive is to foster innovation and economic growth by making trade mark registration systems all over the EU more accessible and efficient for businesses in terms of lower costs and complexity, increased speed, greater predictability and legal security. These adjustments dovetail with efforts to ensure coexistence and complementarity between the Union and national trade mark systems. As regards this initiative to revise the Regulation, the Commission is not proposing a new system, but well-targeted modernisation of existing provisions, with these main aims: · Adapting terminology to the Lisbon Treaty and provisions to the Common Approach on decentralised agencies (see section 5.1); · Streamlining procedures to apply for and register a European trade mark (see section 5.2); · Increasing legal certainty by clarifying provisions and removing ambiguities (see section 5.3); · Establishing an appropriate framework for cooperation between OHIM and national offices for the promoting convergence of practices and developing common tools (see section 5.4); · Aligning the framework to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see section 5.5).
Revised version (Article 161 Transformation):
1. Subject to paragraph 2, the provisions applicable to EU trade mark applications shall apply mutatis mutandis to applications for transformation of an international registration into an EU trade mark application pursuant to Article 9 quinquies of the Madrid Protocol. 2. When the application for transformation relates to an international registration designating the Union the particulars of which have been published pursuant to Article 152(2), Articles 37 to 42 shall not apply. 6. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the details to be contained in an application for transformation pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2).