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 2025

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

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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article