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

Cookies Settings

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

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article