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

Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Gift this article