Article 1 
Community trade mark 1. A trade mark for goods or services which is registered in accordance with the conditions contained in this Regulation and in the manner herein provided is hereinafter referred to as a ‘Community trade mark’. 2. A Community trade mark shall have a unitary character. It shall have equal effect throughout the Community: it shall not be registered, transferred or surrendered or be the subject of a decision revoking the rights of the proprietor or declaring it invalid, nor shall its use be prohibited, save in respect of the whole Community. This principle shall apply unless otherwise provided in this 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 1 EU trade mark):
1. A trade mark for goods or services which is registered in accordance with the conditions contained in this Regulation and in the manner herein provided is hereinafter referred to as a ‘European Union trade mark (“EU trade mark”)’ . 2. An EU trade mark shall have a unitary character. It shall have equal effect throughout the Union : it shall not be registered, transferred or surrendered or be the subject of a decision revoking the rights of the proprietor or declaring it invalid, nor shall its use be prohibited, save in respect of the whole Union . This principle shall apply unless otherwise provided in this Regulation.
Article 2 
Office An Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Office’, is hereby established.
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 2 Office):
1. A European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘the Office’) is hereby established. 2. All references in Union law to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) shall be read as references to the Office.
Article 3 
Capacity to act For the purpose of implementing this Regulation, companies or firms and other legal bodies shall be regarded as legal persons if, under the terms of the law governing them, they have the capacity in their own name to have rights and obligations of all kinds, to make contracts or accomplish other legal acts and to sue and be sued.
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 3 Capacity to act):
For the purpose of implementing this Regulation, companies or firms and other legal bodies shall be regarded as legal persons if, under the terms of the law governing them, they have the capacity in their own name to have rights and obligations of all kinds, to make contracts or accomplish other legal acts and to sue and be sued.
Article 4 
Signs of which a Community trade mark may consist A Community trade mark may consist of any signs capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
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 4 Signs of which an EU trade mark may consist):
An EU trade mark may consist of any signs capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging, provided that such signs are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.
Article 5 
Persons who can be proprietors of Community trade marks Any natural or legal person, including authorities established under public law, may be the proprietor 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 5 Persons who can be proprietors of EU trade marks):
Any natural or legal person, including authorities established under public law, may be the proprietor of an EU trade mark .
Article 6 
Means whereby a Community trade mark is obtained A Community trade mark shall be obtained by registration.
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 6 Means whereby an EU trade mark is obtained):
An EU trade mark shall be obtained by registration.
Article 7 
Absolute grounds for refusal 1. The following shall not be registered: (a) signs which do not conform to the requirements of Article 4; (b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character; (c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service; (d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade; (e) signs which consist exclusively of: (i) the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; (iii) the shape which gives substantial value to the goods; (e) signs which consist exclusively of: (i) the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; (iii) the shape which gives substantial value to the goods; (f) trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality; (g) trade marks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service; (h) trade marks which have not been authorised by the competent authorities and are to be refused pursuant to Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Paris Convention’; (i) trade marks which include badges, emblems or escutcheons other than those covered by Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention and which are of particular public interest, unless the consent of the competent authority to their registration has been given; (j) trade marks for wines which contain or consist of a geographical indication identifying wines or for spirits which contain or consist of a geographical indication identifying spirits with respect to such wines or spirits not having that origin; (k) trade marks which contain or consist of a designation of origin or a geographical indication registered in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 6 ) when they correspond to one of the situations covered by Article 13 of the said Regulation and regarding the same type of product, on condition that the application for registration of the trade mark has been submitted after the date of filing with the Commission of the application for registration of the designation of origin or geographical indication. 2. Paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Community. 3. Paragraph 1(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply if the trade mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested in consequence of the use which has been made of it.
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 7 Absolute grounds for refusal):
1. The following shall not be registered: (a) signs which do not conform to the requirements of Article 4; (b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character; (c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service; (d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade; (e) signs which consist exclusively of: (i) the shape, or another characteristic, which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; (iii) the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods; (f) trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality; (g) trade marks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service; (h) trade marks which have not been authorised by the competent authorities and are to be refused pursuant to Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Paris Convention’; (i) trade marks which include badges, emblems or escutcheons other than those covered by Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention and which are of particular public interest, unless the consent of the competent authority to their registration has been given; (j) trade marks which are excluded from registration, pursuant to Union legislation or national law or to international agreements to which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing for protection of designations of origin and geographical indications; (k) trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of traditional terms for wine; (l) trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of traditional specialities guaranteed; (m) trade marks which consist of, or reproduce in their essential elements, an earlier plant variety denomination registered in accordance with Union legislation or national law, or international agreements to which the Union or the Member State concerned is a party, providing for protection of plant variety rights, and which are in respect of plant varieties of the same or closely related species. 2. Paragraph 1 shall apply notwithstanding that the grounds of non-registrability obtain in only part of the Union . 3. Paragraph 1(b), (c) and (d) shall not apply if the trade mark has become distinctive in relation to the goods or services for which registration is requested in consequence of the use which has been made of it.
Article 8 
Relative grounds for refusal 1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: (a) if it is identical with the earlier trade mark and the goods or services for which registration is applied for are identical with the goods or services for which the earlier trade mark is protected; (b) if because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, ‘earlier trade marks’ means: (a) trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those trade marks: (i) Community trade marks; (ii) trade marks registered in a Member State, or, in the case of Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg, at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property; (iii) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in a Member State; (iv) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in the Community; (a) trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those trade marks: (i) Community trade marks; (ii) trade marks registered in a Member State, or, in the case of Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg, at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property; (iii) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in a Member State; (iv) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in the Community; (b) applications for the trade marks referred to in subparagraph (a), subject to their registration; (c) trade marks which, on the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark, or, where appropriate, of the priority claimed in respect of the application for registration of the Community trade mark, are well known in a Member State, in the sense in which the words ‘well known’ are used in Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention. 3. Upon opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark, a trade mark shall not be registered where an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor's consent, unless the agent or representative justifies his action. 4. Upon opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or of another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where and to the extent that, pursuant to the Community legislation or the law of the Member State governing that sign: (a) rights to that sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark, or the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the Community trade mark; (b) that sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. 5. Furthermore, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, the earlier trade mark and is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier Community trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Community and, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned and where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier 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 8 Relative grounds for refusal):
1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: (a) if it is identical with the earlier trade mark and the goods or services for which registration is applied for are identical with the goods or services for which the earlier trade mark is protected; (b) if because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, ‘earlier trade marks’ means: (a) trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark , taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those trade marks: (i) EU trade marks ; (ii) trade marks registered in a Member State, or, in the case of Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg, at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property; (iii) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in a Member State; (iv) trade marks registered under international arrangements which have effect in the Union ; (b) applications for the trade marks referred to in subparagraph (a), subject to their registration; (c) trade marks which, on the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark , or, where appropriate, of the priority claimed in respect of the application for registration of the EU trade mark , are well known in a Member State, in the sense in which the words ‘well known’ are used in Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention. 3. Upon opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark, a trade mark shall not be registered where an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor's consent, unless the agent or representative justifies his action. 4. Upon opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or of another sign used in the course of trade of more than mere local significance, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where and to the extent that, pursuant to the Union legislation or the law of the Member State governing that sign: (a) rights to that sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark , or the date of the priority claimed for the application for registration of the EU trade mark ; (b) that sign confers on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. 4a. Upon opposition by any person authorised under the relevant law to exercise the rights arising from a designation of origin or a geographical indication, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where and to the extent that, pursuant to the Union legislation or national law providing for the protection of designations of origin or geographical indications: (i) an application for a designation of origin or a geographical indication had already been submitted, in accordance with Union legislation or national law, prior to the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark or the date of the priority claimed for the application, subject to its subsequent registration; (ii) that designation of origin or geographical indication confers the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. 5. Upon opposition by the proprietor of a registered earlier trade mark within the meaning of paragraph 2, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered where it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark, irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where, in the case of an earlier EU trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Union or, in the case of an earlier national trade mark, the trade mark has a reputation in the Member State concerned, and where the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
Article 9 
Rights conferred by a Community trade mark 1. A Community trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade: (a) any sign which is identical with the Community trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the Community trade mark is registered; (b) any sign where, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the Community trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the Community trade mark and the sign, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark; (c) any sign which is identical with, or similar to, the Community trade mark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the Community trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Community and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the Community trade mark. 2. The following, inter alia , may be prohibited under paragraph 1: (a) affixing the sign to the goods or to the packaging thereof; (b) offering the goods, putting them on the market or stocking them for these purposes under that sign, or offering or supplying services thereunder; (c) importing or exporting the goods under that sign; (d) using the sign on business papers and in advertising. 3. The rights conferred by a Community trade mark shall prevail against third parties from the date of publication of registration of the trade mark. Reasonable compensation may, however, be claimed in respect of acts occurring after the date of publication of a Community trade mark application, which acts would, after publication of the registration of the trade mark, be prohibited by virtue of that publication. The court seized of the case may not decide upon the merits of the case until the registration has been 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 9 Rights conferred by an EU trade mark):
1. The registration of an EU trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. 2. Without prejudice to the rights of proprietors acquired before the filing date or the priority date of the EU trade mark, the proprietor of that EU trade mark shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade, in relation to goods or services, any sign where: (a) the sign is identical with the EU trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the EU trade mark is registered; (b) the sign is identical with, or similar to, the EU trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with, or similar to, the goods or services for which the EU trade mark is registered, if there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark; (c) the sign is identical with, or similar to, the EU trade mark irrespective of whether it is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the EU trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Union and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the EU trade mark. 3. The following, in particular, may be prohibited under paragraph 2: (a) affixing the sign to the goods or to the packaging thereof; (b) offering the goods, putting them on the market, or stocking them for those purposes under the sign, or offering or supplying services thereunder; (c) importing or exporting the goods under the sign; (d) using the sign as a trade or company name or part of a trade or company name; (e) using the sign on business papers and in advertising; (f) using the sign in comparative advertising in a manner that is contrary to Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1 ). 4. Without prejudice to the rights of proprietors acquired before the filing date or the priority date of the EU trade mark, the proprietor of that EU trade mark shall also be entitled to prevent all third parties from bringing goods, in the course of trade, into the Union without being released for free circulation there, where such goods, including packaging, come from third countries and bear without authorisation a trade mark which is identical with the EU trade mark registered in respect of such goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from that trade mark. The entitlement of the proprietor of an EU trade mark pursuant to the first subparagraph shall lapse if, during the proceedings to determine whether the EU trade mark has been infringed, initiated in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2 ) concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights, evidence is provided by the declarant or the holder of the goods that the proprietor of the EU trade mark is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the market in the country of final destination.
Article 10 
Reproduction of Community trade marks in dictionaries If the reproduction of a Community trade mark in a dictionary, encyclopaedia or similar reference work gives the impression that it constitutes the generic name of the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, the publisher of the work shall, at the request of the proprietor of the Community trade mark, ensure that the reproduction of the trade mark at the latest in the next edition of the publication is accompanied by an indication that it is a registered 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 10 Reproduction of EU trade marks in dictionaries):
If the reproduction of an EU trade mark in a dictionary, encyclopaedia or similar reference work gives the impression that it constitutes the generic name of the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, the publisher of the work shall, at the request of the proprietor of the EU trade mark , ensure that the reproduction of the trade mark at the latest in the next edition of the publication is accompanied by an indication that it is a registered trade mark.
Article 11 
Prohibition on the use of a Community trade mark registered in the name of an agent or representative Where a Community trade mark is registered in the name of the agent or representative of a person who is the proprietor of that trade mark, without the proprietor's authorisation, the latter shall be entitled to oppose the use of his mark by his agent or representative if he has not authorised such use, unless the agent or representative justifies his action.
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 11 Prohibition on the use of an EU trade mark registered in the name of an agent or representative):
Where an EU trade mark is registered in the name of the agent or representative of a person who is the proprietor of that trade mark, without the proprietor's authorisation, the latter shall be entitled to oppose the use of his mark by his agent or representative if he has not authorised such use, unless the agent or representative justifies his action.
Article 12 
Limitation of the effects of a Community trade mark A Community trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using in the course of trade: (a) his own name or address; (b) indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service; (c) the trade mark where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts, provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
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 12 Limitation of the effects of an EU trade mark):
1. An EU trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade: (a) the name or address of the third party, where that third party is a natural person; (b) signs or indications which are not distinctive or which concern the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or services; (c) the EU trade mark for the purpose of identifying or referring to goods or services as those of the proprietor of that trade mark, in particular, where the use of that trade mark is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts. 2. Paragraph 1 shall only apply where the use made by the third party is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
Article 13 
Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a Community trade mark 1. A Community trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.
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 13 Exhaustion of the rights conferred by an EU trade mark):
1. An EU trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the European Economic Area under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.
Article 14 
Complementary application of national law relating to infringement 1. The effects of Community trade marks shall be governed solely by the provisions of this Regulation. In other respects, infringement of a Community trade mark shall be governed by the national law relating to infringement of a national trade mark in accordance with the provisions of Title X. 2. This Regulation shall not prevent actions concerning a Community trade mark being brought under the law of Member States relating in particular to civil liability and unfair competition. 3. The rules of procedure to be applied shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Title X.
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 14 Complementary application of national law relating to infringement):
1. The effects of EU trade marks shall be governed solely by the provisions of this Regulation. In other respects, infringement of an EU trade mark shall be governed by the national law relating to infringement of a national trade mark in accordance with the provisions of Title X. 2. This Regulation shall not prevent actions concerning an EU trade mark being brought under the law of Member States relating in particular to civil liability and unfair competition. 3. The rules of procedure to be applied shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Title X.
Article 15 
Use of Community trade marks 1. If, within a period of five years following registration, the proprietor has not put the Community trade mark to genuine use in the Community in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, or if such use has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, the Community trade mark shall be subject to the sanctions provided for in this Regulation, unless there are proper reasons for non-use. The following shall also constitute use within the meaning of the first subparagraph: (a) use of the Community trade mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered; (b) affixing of the Community trade mark to goods or to the packaging thereof in the Community solely for export purposes. 2. Use of the Community trade mark with the consent of the proprietor shall be deemed to constitute use by the proprietor.
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 15 Use of EU trade marks):
1. If, within a period of five years following registration, the proprietor has not put the EU trade mark to genuine use in the Union in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, or if such use has been suspended during an uninterrupted period of five years, the EU trade mark shall be subject to the sanctions provided for in this Regulation, unless there are proper reasons for non-use. The following shall also constitute use within the meaning of the first subparagraph: (a) use of the EU trade mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the form as used is also registered in the name of the proprietor; (b) affixing of the EU trade mark to goods or to the packaging thereof in the Union solely for export purposes. 2. Use of the EU trade mark with the consent of the proprietor shall be deemed to constitute use by the proprietor.
Article 16 
Dealing with Community trade marks as national trade marks 1. Unless Articles 17 to 24 provide otherwise, a Community trade mark as an object of property shall be dealt with in its entirety, and for the whole area of the Community, as a national trade mark registered in the Member State in which, according to the Register of Community trade marks: (a) the proprietor has his seat or his domicile on the relevant date; (b) where point (a) does not apply, the proprietor has an establishment on the relevant date. 2. In cases which are not provided for by paragraph 1, the Member State referred to in that paragraph shall be the Member State in which the seat of the Office is situated. 3. If two or more persons are mentioned in the Register of Community trade marks as joint proprietors, paragraph 1 shall apply to the joint proprietor first mentioned; failing this, it shall apply to the subsequent joint proprietors in the order in which they are mentioned. Where paragraph 1 does not apply to any of the joint proprietors, paragraph 2 shall 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 16 Dealing with EU trade marks as national trade marks):
1. Unless Articles 17 to 24 provide otherwise, an EU trade mark as an object of property shall be dealt with in its entirety, and for the whole area of the Union, as a national trade mark registered in the Member State in which, according to the Register: (a) the proprietor has his seat or his domicile on the relevant date; (b) where point (a) does not apply, the proprietor has an establishment on the relevant date. 2. In cases which are not provided for by paragraph 1, the Member State referred to in that paragraph shall be the Member State in which the seat of the Office is situated. 3. If two or more persons are mentioned in the Register of EU trade marks as joint proprietors, paragraph 1 shall apply to the joint proprietor first mentioned; failing this, it shall apply to the subsequent joint proprietors in the order in which they are mentioned. Where paragraph 1 does not apply to any of the joint proprietors, paragraph 2 shall apply.
Article 17 
Transfer 1. A Community trade mark may be transferred, separately from any transfer of the undertaking, in respect of some or all of the goods or services for which it is registered. 2. A transfer of the whole of the undertaking shall include the transfer of the Community trade mark except where, in accordance with the law governing the transfer, there is agreement to the contrary or circumstances clearly dictate otherwise. This provision shall apply to the contractual obligation to transfer the undertaking. 3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, an assignment of the Community trade mark shall be made in writing and shall require the signature of the parties to the contract, except when it is a result of a judgment; otherwise it shall be void. 4. Where it is clear from the transfer documents that because of the transfer the Community trade mark is likely to mislead the public concerning the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, the Office shall not register the transfer unless the successor agrees to limit registration of the Community trade mark to goods or services in respect of which it is not likely to mislead. 5. On request of one of the parties a transfer shall be entered in the Register and published. 6. As long as the transfer has not been entered in the Register, the successor in title may not invoke the rights arising from the registration of the Community trade mark. 7. Where there are time limits to be observed vis-à-vis the Office, the successor in title may make the corresponding statements to the Office once the request for registration of the transfer has been received by the Office. 8. All documents which require notification to the proprietor of the Community trade mark in accordance with Article 79 shall be addressed to the person registered as proprietor.
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 17 Transfer):
1. An EU trade mark may be transferred, separately from any transfer of the undertaking, in respect of some or all of the goods or services for which it is registered. 2. A transfer of the whole of the undertaking shall include the transfer of the EU trade mark except where, in accordance with the law governing the transfer, there is agreement to the contrary or circumstances clearly dictate otherwise. This provision shall apply to the contractual obligation to transfer the undertaking. 3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, an assignment of the EU trade mark shall be made in writing and shall require the signature of the parties to the contract, except when it is a result of a judgment; otherwise it shall be void. 4. Where it is clear from the transfer documents that because of the transfer the EU trade mark is likely to mislead the public concerning the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services in respect of which it is registered, the Office shall not register the transfer unless the successor agrees to limit registration of the EU trade mark to goods or services in respect of which it is not likely to mislead. 5. On request of one of the parties a transfer shall be entered in the Register and published. 5b. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying: (a) the details to be contained in the application for registration of a transfer; (b) the kind of documentation required to establish a transfer, taking account of the agreements given by the registered proprietor and the successor in title; (c) the details of how to process applications for partial transfers, ensuring that the goods and services in the remaining registration and the new registration do not overlap and that a separate file, including a new registration number, is established for the new registration. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2). 6. As long as the transfer has not been entered in the Register, the successor in title may not invoke the rights arising from the registration of the EU trade mark . 7. Where there are time limits to be observed vis-à-vis the Office, the successor in title may make the corresponding statements to the Office once the request for registration of the transfer has been received by the Office. 8. All documents which require notification to the proprietor of the EU trade mark in accordance with Article 79 shall be addressed to the person registered as proprietor.
Article 18 
Transfer of a trade mark registered in the name of an agent Where a Community trade mark is registered in the name of the agent or representative of a person who is the proprietor of that trade mark, without the proprietor's authorisation, the latter shall be entitled to demand the assignment in his favour of the said registration, unless such agent or representative justifies his action.
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 18 Transfer of a trade mark registered in the name of an agent):
Where an EU trade mark is registered in the name of the agent or representative of a person who is the proprietor of that trade mark, without the proprietor's authorisation, the latter shall be entitled to demand the assignment in his favour of the said registration, unless such agent or representative justifies his action.
Article 19 
Rights in rem 1. A Community trade mark may, independently of the undertaking, be given as security or be the subject of rights in rem . 2. On request of one of the parties, rights mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be entered in the Register and 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 19 Rights in rem):
1. An EU trade mark may, independently of the undertaking, be given as security or be the subject of rights in rem . 2. On request of one of the parties, rights mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be entered in the Register and published.
Article 20 
Levy of execution 1. A Community trade mark may be levied in execution. 2. As regards the procedure for levy of execution in respect of a Community trade mark, the courts and authorities of the Member States determined in accordance with Article 16 shall have exclusive jurisdiction. 3. On request of one the parties, levy of execution shall be entered in the Register and 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 20 Levy of execution):
1. An EU trade mark may be levied in execution. 2. As regards the procedure for levy of execution in respect of an EU trade mark , the courts and authorities of the Member States determined in accordance with Article 16 shall have exclusive jurisdiction. 3. On request of one the parties, levy of execution shall be entered in the Register and published.
Article 21 
Insolvency proceedings 1. The only insolvency proceedings in which a Community trade mark may be involved are those opened in the Member State in the territory of which the debtor has his centre of main interests. However, where the debtor is an insurance undertaking or a credit institution as defined in Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings ( 7 ) and Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions ( 8 ), respectively, the only insolvency proceedings in which a Community trademark may be involved are those opened in the Member State where that undertaking or institution has been authorised. 2. In the case of joint proprietorship of a Community trade mark, paragraph 1 shall apply to the share of the joint proprietor. 3. Where a Community trade mark is involved in insolvency proceedings, on request of the competent national authority an entry to this effect shall be made in the Register and published in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin referred to in Article 89.
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 21 Insolvency proceedings):
1. The only insolvency proceedings in which an EU trade mark may be involved are those opened in the Member State in the territory of which the debtor has his centre of main interests. However, where the debtor is an insurance undertaking or a credit institution as defined in Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings ( 4 ) and Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions ( 5 ), respectively, the only insolvency proceedings in which an EU trade mark may be involved are those opened in the Member State where that undertaking or institution has been authorised. 2. In the case of joint proprietorship of an EU trade mark , paragraph 1 shall apply to the share of the joint proprietor. 3. Where an EU trade mark is involved in insolvency proceedings, on request of the competent national authority an entry to this effect shall be made in the Register and published in the EU Trade Marks lletin referred to in Article 89.
Article 22 
Licensing 1. A Community trade mark may be licensed for some or all of the goods or services for which it is registered and for the whole or part of the Community. A licence may be exclusive or non-exclusive. 2. The proprietor of a Community trade mark may invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes any provision in his licensing contract with regard to: (a) its duration; (b) the form covered by the registration in which the trade mark may be used; (c) the scope of the goods or services for which the licence is granted; (d) the territory in which the trade mark may be affixed; or (e) the quality of the goods manufactured or of the services provided by the licensee. 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of the licensing contract, the licensee may bring proceedings for infringement of a Community trade mark only if its proprietor consents thereto. However, the holder of an exclusive licence may bring such proceedings if the proprietor of the trade mark, after formal notice, does not himself bring infringement proceedings within an appropriate period. 4. A licensee shall, for the purpose of obtaining compensation for damage suffered by him, be entitled to intervene in infringement proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community trade mark. 5. On request of one of the parties the grant or transfer of a licence in respect of a Community trade mark shall be entered in the Register and 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 22 Licensing):
1. An EU trade mark may be licensed for some or all of the goods or services for which it is registered and for the whole or part of the Union . A licence may be exclusive or non-exclusive. 2. The proprietor of an EU trade mark may invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes any provision in his licensing contract with regard to: (a) its duration; (b) the form covered by the registration in which the trade mark may be used; (c) the scope of the goods or services for which the licence is granted; (d) the territory in which the trade mark may be affixed; or (e) the quality of the goods manufactured or of the services provided by the licensee. 3. Without prejudice to the provisions of the licensing contract, the licensee may bring proceedings for infringement of an EU trade mark only if its proprietor consents thereto. However, the holder of an exclusive licence may bring such proceedings if the proprietor of the trade mark, after formal notice, does not himself bring infringement proceedings within an appropriate period. 4. A licensee shall, for the purpose of obtaining compensation for damage suffered by him, be entitled to intervene in infringement proceedings brought by the proprietor of the EU trade mark . 5. On request of one of the parties the grant or transfer of a licence in respect of an EU trade mark shall be entered in the Register and published.
Article 23 
Effects vis-à-vis third parties 1. Legal acts referred to in Articles 17, 19 and 22 concerning a Community trade mark shall have effects vis-à-vis third parties in all the Member States only after entry in the Register. Nevertheless, such an act, before it is so entered, shall have effect vis-à-vis third parties who have acquired rights in the trade mark after the date of that act but who knew of the act at the date on which the rights were acquired. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in the case of a person who acquires the Community trade mark or a right concerning the Community trade mark by way of transfer of the whole of the undertaking or by any other universal succession. 3. The effects vis-à-vis third parties of the legal acts referred to in Article 20 shall be governed by the law of the Member State determined in accordance with Article 16. 4. Until such time as common rules for the Member States in the field of bankruptcy enter into force, the effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or like proceedings shall be governed by the law of the Member State in which such proceedings are first brought within the meaning of national law or of conventions applicable in this field.
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 23 Effects vis-à-vis third parties):
1. Legal acts referred to in Articles 17, 19 and 22 concerning an EU trade mark shall have effects vis-à-vis third parties in all the Member States only after entry in the Register. Nevertheless, such an act, before it is so entered, shall have effect vis-à-vis third parties who have acquired rights in the trade mark after the date of that act but who knew of the act at the date on which the rights were acquired. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in the case of a person who acquires the EU trade mark or a right concerning the EU trade mark by way of transfer of the whole of the undertaking or by any other universal succession. 3. The effects vis-à-vis third parties of the legal acts referred to in Article 20 shall be governed by the law of the Member State determined in accordance with Article 16. 4. Until such time as common rules for the Member States in the field of bankruptcy enter into force, the effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or like proceedings shall be governed by the law of the Member State in which such proceedings are first brought within the meaning of national law or of conventions applicable in this field.
Article 24 
The application for a Community trade mark as an object of property Articles 16 to 23 shall apply to applications for Community trade marks.
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 24 The application for an EU trade mark as an object of property):
Articles 16 to 23 shall apply to applications for EU trade marks .
Article 25 
Filing of applications 1. An application for a Community trade mark shall be filed, at the choice of the applicant: (a) at the Office; (b) at the central industrial property office of a Member State or at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property. An application filed in this way shall have the same effect as if it had been filed on the same date at the Office. 2. Where the application is filed at the central industrial property office of a Member State or at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, that office shall take all steps to forward the application to the Office within two weeks after filing. It may charge the applicant a fee which shall not exceed the administrative costs of receiving and forwarding the application. 3. Applications referred to in paragraph 2 which reach the Office more than two months after filing shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the application reached the Office. 4. Ten years after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the Commission shall draw up a report on the operation of the system of filing applications for Community trade marks, together with any proposals for modifying this system.
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 26 
Conditions with which applications must comply 1. An application for a Community trade mark shall contain: (a) a request for the registration of a Community trade mark; (b) information identifying the applicant; (c) a list of the goods or services in respect of which the registration is requested; (d) a representation of the trade mark. 2. The application for a Community trade mark shall be subject to the payment of the application fee and, when appropriate, of one or more class fees. 3. An application for a Community trade mark must comply with the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulation referred to in Article 162(1), hereinafter referred to as 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 26 Conditions with which applications must comply):
1. An application for an EU trade mark shall contain: (a) a request for the registration of an EU trade mark ; (b) information identifying the applicant; (c) a list of the goods or services in respect of which the registration is requested; (d) a representation of the trade mark. 2. The application for an EU trade mark shall be subject to the payment of the application fee covering one class of goods or services and, where appropriate, of one or more class fees for each class of goods and services exceeding the first class and, where applicable, the search fee. 3. An application for an EU trade mark must comply with the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulation referred to in Article 162(1), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Implementing Regulation’. 4. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts specifying the details to be contained in the application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 163(2).
Article 27 
Date of filing The date of filing of a Community trade mark application shall be the date on which documents containing the information specified in Article 26(1) are filed with the Office by the applicant or, if the application has been filed with the central office of a Member State or with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, with that office, subject to payment of the application fee within a period of one month of filing the abovementioned documents.
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 27 Date of filing):
The date of filing of an EU trade mark application shall be the date on which the documents containing the information specified in Article 26(1) are filed with the Office by the applicant, subject to payment of the application fee within one month of filing those documents.