Belgium: Changes following the new EU Trade Mark Directive

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Belgium: Changes following the new EU Trade Mark Directive

The Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks was published in the Official Journal on December 23 2015 and entered into force on the 20th day following its publication date. Most of its provisions shall thus be implemented in national laws within a three-year deadline, that is by January 14 2019.

To implement the Directive, the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP) has to be reformed.

The major change will be the administrative procedure for revocation and invalidity. Even if a Protocol in this regard is in the process of approval by the Benelux states, it will have to be further modified to include, in particular, the new absolute and relative grounds of refusal provided by the Directive. To set up such procedures, member states have an extended deadline to implement this provision, until January 14 2023.

Among the other mandatory provisions, the new definition of signs registrable as trade marks, adopted for the EUTM, will also have to apply to Benelux trademarks. The criteria of graphic representation shall thus disappear.

The requirements in terms of classification are also mandatory provisions. The reformed BCIP shall thus reflect the rules defined by the IP Translator case: the goods and services shall be identified "with sufficient clarity and precision" and class headings may be used provided that they comply with the standards of clarity and precision.

The BCIP will also have to redefine the current collective trade marks, in order to fit the definitions set out by the Directive for collective and certification trade marks. Note that the collective trademark as defined by the BCIP should be regarded as a certification trade mark. The BCIP could alternatively add a new section on real collective trade marks next to the existing regime. The Benelux countries will have to make a choice with regards to the fees, since the system of fees per class (already adopted for the EUTM) is an optional provision.

Delaroque

Estelle Delaroque


Gevers & OresHolidaystraat, 5B-1831 Diegem - BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 715 37 11Fax: +32 2 715 37 00www.gevers.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The hire of Frederick Nicolle as a partner continues Pinsent Masons' expansion while reducing Simmons’ patent prosecution offering in London to zero
The expansion into Granada forms part of a national ‘decentralisation’ strategy focused on providing proximity to research and tech businesses away from traditional hubs
Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
Gift this article