Editor's note: Nissan A company has a trademark designated for use in three categories of goods or services. Within six months prior to the expiration of the trademark, The trademark owner proposed to renew only part of the trademark right (That is, to renew the trademark rights in only two of the categories of goods or services) Application for. subsequently, Within six months after the expiration of the trademark, The trademark owner also submitted an application to renew the trademark right in the remaining class of goods or services. The EU Intellectual Property Office rejected it Nissan The company's second renewal application. Read on to see why!

[background] Nissan A company has a trademark designated for use in three categories of goods or services. Within six months prior to the expiration of the trademark, The trademark owner proposed to renew only part of the trademark right (That is, to renew the trademark rights in only two of the categories of goods or services) Application for. subsequently, Within six months after the expiration of the trademark, The trademark owner also submitted an application to renew the trademark right in the remaining class of goods or services. The EU Intellectual Property Office rejected it Nissan The company's second renewal application.

[conclusion] The European Intellectual Property Office approved Nissan The first application by a company to renew trademark rights in two categories of goods or services, It is also recognized that the trademark owner has given up the trademark right on the third type of goods or services. Eu Intellectual Property Office explained, The decision was taken in order to preserve the certainty of the legal state. Due to "Trademark rights are renewed on two classes of goods or services" The facts have been registered, Therefore Nissan The company's understanding of this fact has had a global impact (erga omneseffects) , It can no longer seek to overturn its previous decision to waive the renewal of its trademark rights for category III goods or services. Court of Justice of the European Union, Eu Intellectual Property Office vs "Regulations of the European Union concerning trademarks of the European Union (The first 207/2009 No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "European Union regulation 207/2009 No" ) The first 50 The article about the EU trademark owner to give up the trademark rights made an expanded interpretation, And control 47 Article on the EU trademark renewal provisions made a narrow interpretation, Thus damage Nissan The legal rights and interests of the company. but, The Court of Justice of the European Union also stated in its ruling "in "European Union regulation 207/2009 No" The first 47 article 3 Within the period specified in the paragraph (From six months before the expiration of the term of validity of the trademark right to six months after the expiration of the term of validity of the trademark right) , The application for renewal of trademark rights in different categories of goods or services is filed in batches, No violation of the above provisions (The first 47 Articles and regulations 50 article) Stipulation of. " "European Union regulation 207/2009 No" The first 47 article 3 Provision of paragraph: "3. The application for renewal shall be submitted within six months prior to the last day of the month in which the trademark expires. The renewal fee shall also be paid within the above-mentioned time limit. Failing to submit the renewal application and pay the renewal fee within the above time limit, The renewal application and renewal fee may be submitted within 6 months after the last day of the month in which the trademark expires, And a late fee is payable. " The first 50 article 1 Provision of paragraph: "1. The EU trademark may waive its trademark rights in whole or in part for the class of goods or services specified for use. " It can be seen from the above article, Regardless of control 47 Article or regulation 50 article, The text is clear, Not easy to misunderstand.

[comment] Here's the surprise, When a trademark registrant and his agent act in accordance with the law, As stipulated by law (At least in German, Portuguese, The Finnish and Danish versions of the No 47 article 3 paragraph) When there is a void and controversy arises, Eu Intellectual Property Office and EU General Court (General Court) The provisions in dispute shall be interpreted in a manner conducive to the interests of the trademark owner, However, it is actually interpreted in a way that is unfavorable to the trademark owner. The other odd thing about this case, It is well known that the EU trademark renewal period provides a six-month grace period, Therefore, No one is suggesting that EU trademark rights will expire by the end of this grace period, The EU Intellectual Property Office, however, insists that filing renewal applications in different periods is not conducive to legal certainty. From our point of view, Even if the owner of the trademark only extends his trademark rights to certain categories of goods or services, Until the end of the grace period for EU trademark renewal, We will all be equally cautious about jumping to any conclusions. We should be consistent in our search for legal certainty. But to ensure legal certainty, On the one hand, the trademark owner is not allowed to apply for trademark renewal before the expiration of the grace period, On the other hand, the EU Intellectual Property Office database does not keep up to date, There is a clear contradiction between the two approaches. Not updating data in a timely manner will cause delays in information transmission, And seriously undermine legal certainty. Therefore, The Court of Justice of the European Union required in this judgment, The EU Intellectual Property Office should adopt appropriate information means to ensure its presence "Renew in installments" Case time, The corresponding rights of users of the EU trademark system can be guaranteed.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights