OHIM to crack down on non-payers

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

OHIM to crack down on non-payers

ohim-logo-45.gif

Two changes affecting CTM applicants will come into effect on November 24: OHIM will only examine applications after they have been paid for, and it will also introduce a fast-track procedure

OHIM logo

The first change is driven by the desire to improve efficiency, as the Office will not spend time examining or processing mail for applications where no payment has been made.

At present, CTM applicants can pay the basic fee within one month of filing the application. About 4% of CTM applications are examined but never paid for, and OHIM says that proportion is rising.

The second change means that applications will be published in half the time it takes regular applications, or even less.

To be eligible for the fast track procedure, applicants must (1) select the goods and services from OHIM’s harmonised database and (2) pay at the end of the application process or immediately after submission. Additionally, the application should not trigger any deficiency finding at the time of submission or during examination.

More details are available on OHIM’s website.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
The court ruled against the owner of the ‘Umbro’ mark, despite noting that post-sale confusion can be a legitimate ground for infringement
Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Practitioners say the Bombay High Court shouldn’t have refused well-known trademark recognition for TikTok simply because the app is banned in India
In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Gift this article