The latest edition of the Guidelines for Examination of European Union trade marks (EUTMs) and registered European Union designs (EUDs), reflecting the current Office practice, entered into force on 1 July 2026. After exhaustive consultation with stakeholders and the Management Board of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), it was adopted by the Executive Director of the Office on 30 June 2026 by means of Decision No EX-26-09.

A summary of the main changes is set out below.

Examination of applications for registered EU designs

Graphic representation requirements, such as the agreements reached in the context of the Common Communication for Requirements and Means of Design Representation, have been updated. This includes amendments related to the 'sufficiently clear representation' topic, which is now a filing date requirement.

New topics have been introduced concerning the types and means of representation of designs, distinguishing between a static, animated or dynamic representation. The new rules on the number and types of views, as well as the acceptable types of visual disclaimer, have also been updated.

The section on grounds for non-registrability now includes the additional ground based on Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (including its application in the case of EU enlargement).

The new practice regarding objections to product indications under Article 48(4) EUDR has been restructured significantly. Now the Office will propose changes and wait for the applicant's reply unless the 'ex officio changes' option was chosen by the applicant when filing.

The requirements for amendment and alteration, allowing insignificant changes to EUDs before and after the registration, have been clarified.

Examination of design invalidity applications

This entire section has been restructured to provide greater clarity. In particular, sections have been introduced on evidence from online sources. It now explains how to substantiate earlier rights and the content of national law in invalidity proceedings.

The admissibility requirements for each individual ground have been updated and all the grounds for invalidity have been revised to reflect recent case-law. The new practice for conflicts with prior design rights in invalidity proceedings has also been explained.

New invalidity proceedings as a matter of priority have been introduced. This section will be developed further in future revisions of the Guidelines as the practice evolves and real examples become available.

Examination of European Union trade marks

Part B Examination

A comprehensive review of the Office's practice in relation to earlier geographical indications (GIs) has been included, particularly in light of the related legislative reforms and the General Court's judgment of 25/06/2025, T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne (GI), EU:T:2025:638, which includes the following points:

(a) Clarification has been provided on the change of practice regarding the extended ex officio examination based on Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, which is no longer limited to identical/comparable goods and related services but may go beyond it. An objection can also be based on the ground of exploitation, weakening, dilution or detriment to the reputation of a GI, if relevant information is available to the Office.

(b) The extent to which an EUTM application can overcome an objection by using a restriction where a GI is 'used' in an EUTM for identical goods and related services has been explained. Likewise, the fact that overcoming an objection by means of a limitation is a presumption that can be overturned.

(c) Scenarios constituting 'use' or 'evocation' have been clarified.

(d) Clarification that a restriction to the relevant GI product will not overcome an objection where the GI is: (i) 'evoked' in an EUTM for any goods and services; or (ii) 'used/evoked' in an EUTM for processed or manufactured goods where a 'GI product is an ingredient, part or component'.

(e) The scope of 'misleading indication or practice' under the relevant legislation has been clarified following the Nero Champagne judgment.

(f) The implementation of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 for 'GIs for craft and industrial products' (CIGIs) covers, inter alia, Union GI registers, the Office's new role, the scope of protection, earlier national rights and the exhaustive nature of the EU GI system.

(g) General content updates following external feedback, with clarifications inter alia, on generic and common terms, the notion of the 'European consumer', the identity of the applicant, the presumption arising from a restriction, and comparable goods.

(h) Regarding the practice on collective EUTMs consisting of a GI product-specific logo (i.e. a logo contained in the product specification as a specific labelling rule for the product concerned), the Office will no longer systematically object on the basis that such marks will be perceived as GIs and not as collective trade marks (Section 4, Absolute grounds for refusal, Chapter 15, European Union collective marks).

Part C Opposition

A description of the Office's new role has been included in relation to the Union GI registers, as well as how the substantiation of EU GIs in opposition proceedings may be made easier by the Office's ex officio knowledge of the information in the Union GI Registers and by using the 'extended data' in the GIview database.

Clarifications were introduced on, inter alia, the recognition of existing or established CIGIs as EU GIs. These clarifications explain that there is no transfer of rights as EU GIs constitute new rights with their own priority date, as well as the possibility of extending national protection under Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411.

The new case-law judgment of 24/09/2025, T-406/24, PriSecco / Prosecco, EU:T:2025:893 has been added under paragraph 3.1.2, Evocation, imitation, misuse and misleading indications and practices.

The recent decision of the Court of Justice in judgment 05/02/2026, C-337/22 P, Ape tees (fig.) / DEVICE OF APE HEAD (fig.) et al., EU:C:2026:71, which confirmed the Office's long-standing practice that an earlier right on which an opposition is based must remain valid until the date of the decision, has been incorporated.

New practice now states that, should an opponent invoke earlier rights that are ineligible under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opposition will be rejected as inadmissible (not unsubstantiated as previously), thereby allowing the proceedings to be concluded earlier.

Regarding extensions of a time limit (second and subsequent requests), a change of practice now means that parties are no longer required to submit 'supporting evidence' when filing a request for further extensions (Article 68 EUTMDR). However, the request must still be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances.

Regarding the extension of suspensions upon a joint request by the parties, new practice means that, after proceedings have been suspended for an initial six-month period (following a request from both parties), a subsequent joint request for an extension of the suspension will be automatically granted for 18 months (or up to the maximum of two years pursuant to Article 71(2) EUTMDR). The parties can opt out at any time.

In line with recent case-law, new practice regarding the impact of irregular capitalisation when comparing word marks means that the use of upper- and lower-case letters has no impact on the assessment of similarity of word marks. As a result, word marks which differ only in lower- and upper-case letters are deemed to be identical.

Following recent case-law regarding the assessment on the inherent degree of distinctive character of single letters in likelihood of confusion analysis, a single letter is now considered to have, in itself, weak distinctive character where it is not stylised or only slightly stylised.

The recent decision of the General Court in judgment 10/09/2025, T-425/24, pasta ZARA Sublime (fig.) / ZARA et al., EU:T:2025:849, has provided further guidance on the criteria for applying a 'due cause' defence under Article 8(5) EUTMR which has been incorporated in the Guidelines.

More comprehensive explanations and examples from case-law have been included regarding the assessment and definition of subcategories of goods and services in the context of the analysis of genuine use, relevant when the trade mark is registered for a broad category of goods or services.

Part D Cancellation

There is a new point on the inadmissibility of applications for revocation based on non-use due to abuse of law or process based on the criteria and exceptional circumstances laid down by the Grand Board decision of 11/02/2020, R 2445/2017-G, Sandra Pabst.

New practice has been reflected to the extent that a request for an earlier date of revocation does not need to be based on 'legitimate interest' (as the EUTMR does not strictly require this).

Part E Register operations

Following the Grand Board decision of 18/09/2023, R 1508/2019-G, Zara, a new section has been added establishing the new practice for examining a conversion request where, following the revocation of an EUTM/IR for non-use, the applicant asserts that the EUTM/IR has been genuinely used according to the law of the relevant Member State (Article 139(2)(a) EUTMR).

Practice common to both trade marks and designs

Part A General rules

Communications addressed to the Office in EUD proceedings can only be submitted by electronic means. A clarification has been added to state that any submission by post or courier, after 01/07/2026, will be deemed not to have been received and the sender will be informed about that. The submission will not be returned to the sender and will be destroyed after 30 days unless the sender reclaims them by its own means.

Data carriers are no longer accepted in EUD proceedings, as submissions by post are not accepted.

The paragraph that the Office would grant additional days in case of a refusal of a request for a second or subsequent extension of time limit has been removed. Moreover, supporting evidence will not be required when requesting a second or subsequent extension of time limit.

The continuation of proceedings is now allowed in EUD proceedings. This section now reflects this and clarifies which time limits are excluded, both for EUTMs and EUDs.

Clarifications were added for cases where a request for continuation of proceedings is filed after a decision has been taken.

New paragraphs in Section 10 explain the basic concepts and rules regarding evidence and burden of proof in EUIPO proceedings.

Part E Register operations

The application to register the transfer, in EUD proceedings, can only be submitted by electronic means.

The possibility to register a licence limited to a specific range of products in EUD proceedings has been introduced.

Background

The EUIPO trade mark and design practice is reflected in a series of periodically updated Guidelines that are intended to be of practical use both to Office staff in charge of the various procedures and to users of the Office's services. They are the main point of reference for users of the EUTM and EUD systems, and for professional advisers who want to ensure they have the latest information on our examination practices. They contain general instructions, drawn up to reflect our Office practice in the most frequent scenarios, which have to always be adapted to the particularities of a case.

Source: EUIPO website (content freely available), 1 July 2026 – https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/news/entry-into-force-of-the-2026-edition-of-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-eutms-and-euds. Reproduced in accordance with the EUIPO Legal Notice; onward reproduction and distribution permitted under the same conditions.