United Kingdom: Brexit – the EU position
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

United Kingdom: Brexit – the EU position

c963031c-805d-4f1a-9099-1548249f5b9fbrexit-min-2-final.jpg

The European Commission has issued its position paper on pan-European Union IP rights post-Brexit. As patents are not governed by the EU but come under the remit of European Patent Office, they are unaffected by Brexit and are not included in the document. Thus the EU need only concern itself with other IP rights, mainly trade marks and designs.

The Commission states that following Brexit it wishes that "the protection enjoyed in the United Kingdom on the basis of Union law by both UK and EU 27 holders of intellectual property rights having unitary character within the Union before the withdrawal date is not undermined by the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union".

Whether this will be the eventual path chosen or negotiated successfully remains to be seen.

The EU propose that EU rights granted prior to Brexit will automatically divide to create an equivalent UK right. The rights qualifying for automatic division to the UK will include: EU trade marks; registered and unregistered Community designs; protected geographical indicators, designations of origin and terms in relation to agricultural products; and Community plant variety rights. European patents are therefore totally unaffected by Brexit and are not part of the EU's considerations.

The implementation of this principle should ensure that applicable renewal dates, priority and seniority claims, genuine use requirements and reputation rules should remain the same. Moreover, implementation should not be at a cost to the holder of the right.

In terms of holders of EUTM or RCD applications pending at the date of Brexit, the Commission proposes that the holder should have the opportunity to divide their application and retain the priority date of the original EU application.

With regard to SPCs, the Commission proposes that applications filed in the UK for SPCs or the extension of their duration are completed in accordance with EU law.

The Commission considers that database rights protected under EU legislation should continue to enjoy equivalent protection in both the EU and UK post-Brexit.

Rights that have been exhausted in the EU prior to Brexit shall remain exhausted in both the EU and UK post-Brexit. The conditions for exhaustion concerning IP rights should remain those defined by EU law.

Chapman

Helga Chapman

Chapman + Co

18 Staple Gardens

Winchester SO23 8SR

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1962 600 500  

info@chapmanip.com  

www.chapmanip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Counsel explain how pricing flexibility, patent agents and being business partners can help them maintain profitable patent prosecution practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Speakers at an INTA event weighed in on why firms should create AI use policies and how they stay on top of the latest developments
The England and Wales Court of Appeal backed Lidl in its trademark dispute with Tesco, but we should pay more attention to how we rule on first-instance decisions
Richard Kempner, partner at Haseltine Lake Kempner, discusses the ‘remarkable’ comments from judges, despite the court finding against his client Tesco on the bulk of issues
Gift this article