Europe plans to tackle goods-in-transit problem

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

Europe plans to tackle goods-in-transit problem

Proposals to reform EU trade mark law were finally published last week – and included a nice surprise for trade mark owners

EU

The proposals include substantial changes to the Trade Marks Directive, CTM Regulation and Fees Regulation.

Draft versions of the plans were circulated widely earlier this year and reported on managingip.com in February.

Among other changes, the European Commission plans to cut fees for CTM applications covering only one class rather than three and improve harmonisation by requiring national offices to provide administrative cancellation and opposition systems.

The February draft also included proposals to change the burden of proof in goods-in-transit cases, so that the shipper would be required to show that the goods were not intended for the EU market. This was designed to address concerns raised by brand owners following the CJEU decision in the Philips and Nokia cases.

However, the final proposal published last week goes much further than this. Noting that “there is an urgent need to have in place a European legal framework enabling a more effective fight against the counterfeiting of goods” it proposes entitling right holders to prevent third parties from bring goods into the EU if they bear a trade mark “which is essentially identical to the trade mark registered in respect of those goods”.

The new right would apply “regardless of whether [the goods] are released for free circulation”.

Stuart Adams of Rouse in London, who sits on an INTA committee which has been addressing this issue, said the proposal would be welcomed by brand owners: “I can’t say how happy I am.”

He added: “If ratified, these proposals will be a significant victory for rights holders and a blow against counterfeiters.”

The Directive and Regulation proposals are now subject to the codecision procedure, requiring approval by the European Parliament and Council. This is expected next year. Once approved, the changes in the Directive will have to be transposed into national laws within two years. The changes to the Fees Regulation follow a slightly different procedure.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article