There were 166,214 EU trade mark (EUTM) and EU design (EUD) applications during the first half of 2026, an increase of 4.7% on the same period in 2025.

The number of EUTM applications grew 8.4% to 104,263, surpassing the previous record set in 2021.

Filings from EU Member States grew by 14.6%, leading to the share of applications coming from the EU going up from 57.4% in 2025 to 60.7% in 2026.

The highest growth came from France (17.4%) followed by Germany (15.2%) and Poland (13.3%).

Filings from China fell 12.4% but the country remains the highest filer overall.

Meanwhile, there were 61,951 EUD applications during the half-year period, a decline of 1% compared to 2025.

Despite the overall decline in EUD applications, filings from EU Member States grew by 1.6%, led by growth in Spain (up 28%).

The first half of 2026 also saw the first applications for EU craft and industrial geographical indications (CIGIs).

Of the 81 CIGC applications filed so far, 42 have come from Portugal, 25 from France and 10 from Slovakia.

Read more about the half-year trends on the EUIPO website here, which includes charts including the one pictured above

In the first part of this article, Marion Heathcote, Chair of the MARQUES IP Emerging Issues Team, noted that the Team asked: if AI understands us better than we understand ourselves, why not let it handle our purchasing decisions entirely? What would this mean for trade mark law?

To answer those questions, we are reproducing the Team’s original 2022 draft article, penned by Michal Hasiow, on ‘Navigating the pitfalls of brand control in product and packaging personalisation’.

The previously published part 1 introduced the concept. In this second part, we look at how brands can retain (or regain) control.

Boundaries and safe words

While brands’ trust vis-a-vis their customers can lead to a richer customer experience, it should have its limits. Personalisation options can be kept in check by offering a curated catalogue of choices – allowing consumers to select from a predefined set of features. This approach, focusing on design elements such as colours, shapes or ribbons, significantly reduces risks. However, some combinations (such as national flag colours) may still spark controversy, depending on the context.

Allowing predefined texts, such as initials or short phrases, is generally low risk. But while these options seem safe, they still leave room for problematic combinations, such as “SS” or “KGB”. The real challenge arises with freely generated content, such as longer text or photos, which are harder to control and carry higher risks.

Automated filtering systems help screen inappropriate terms, but they come with technical limitations. Too much filtering can stifle creativity, while too little allows harmful content to slip through. Finding the right balance is essential to mitigate the risk of brand damage.

For instance, a customer from a major beverage brand would receive the following message when using their personalisation service:

“Oops! Looks like the name you requested is not an approved one. Names may not be approved if they're potentially offensive to other people, trademarked, or celebrity names. We've worked hard to get this list right, but sometimes we mess up. If you think this is an error, please contact our Customer Care team. Otherwise, please try again, keep it fun and in the spirit of sharing!”

The list includes ‘Hitler’ and ‘Stalin,’ but not ‘Mussolini’ or ‘Bin Laden’. Many sexist and racist terms are banned in English but may not be filtered in other languages, such as their Spanish equivalents. This raises the issue of how multinational brands can handle personalisation across different cultures with varying standards for offensive content.

And what about words that don't fit neatly into defined categories but could still be harmful, particularly if they express brand criticism? A famous footwear brand learned this lesson early in the personalisation era. When the brand refused a personalisation request based on a term “sweatshop”, the refusal sparked viral backlash. The ensuing controversy surrounding the brand’s decision to deny the request, along with the customer service exchanges, ended up damaging the brand’s reputation and compromising the entire personalisation service.

This highlights the delicate balance brands must strike: while controlling associations is important, refusal to personalise based on subjective reasoning can lead to accusations of censorship, as another tech company experienced when it blocked references to political speech in its engraving service.

These situations can easily escalate, proving that what seems like a harmless term may, in fact, have far-reaching consequences.

Terms and conditions

Being upfront about the terms and conditions for personalisation may not completely eliminate misuse, but it serves the important purpose of clarifying the brand owner’s intentions, which can be crucial if issues arise. These terms should include:

• the consumer warrants that they have the necessary permissions to place the personalisation order and authorise the operator to produce the item(s) on their behalf;
• the consumer is solely responsible for the submitted content and assumes all liability for any misuse or legal consequences;
• the consumer warrants that the submitted content does not infringe third-party rights, including copyright, trade mark, right of publicity or privacy, and will not libel or defame any third party;
• the operator reserves the right to refuse any content deemed offensive, inappropriate or explicit, with full discretion, and without obligation to provide an explanation.

In-store personalisation

One idea for brand owners to consider is to shift personalisation to the in-store experience, whenever possible. This approach allows the process to be more directly managed by personnel, offering a level of control that online platforms can't always provide.

In-store personalisation helps guard against the unpredictable "imaginativeness" that often accompanies anonymous online ordering, where the lack of direct oversight can lead to unintended or inappropriate content.

By guiding the personalisation process in person, brands can ensure a more positive experience, keeping it fun and engaging, rather than risking the creation of controversial or damaging products – such as a dictator’s face on a box of morning cereals. This extra step not only protects the brand but also ensures that customers enjoy a more tailored and controlled interaction with the brand.

Marion Heathcote is a Principal with Davies Collison Cave in Syndey, Australia and Chair of the MARQUES IP Emerging Issues Team

In 2022, the MARQUES IP Emerging Issues (IPEI) Team prepared an article on brand control in product and packaging personalisation through user-generated content. This article was never published. What seemed like an emerging issue at the time has resurfaced as the Team revisited the very concept of defining an "emerging issue”, just when the world outside the IP realm felt more unpredictable than ever, as Team Chair Marion Heathcote explains.

AI and large language models are reshaping industries and legal frameworks at an unprecedented pace, and intellectual property is no exception. As a result, even articles written just a few years – or even months – ago now demand a fresh look to ask: "Does this still hold true today?"

Instead of updating the original text, on review the current IPEI Team wanted to publish Michal Hasiow’s original text as it was first drafted, thus allowing the extent of change to speak for itself while leaving space for alternative interpretations.

AI and personalisation

At first glance, AI seems to offer a perfect solution for personalisation challenges. It can automate content moderation, filter harmful language and deliver dynamic customer experiences with ease. By processing vast amounts of data and responding to customer inputs in real time, AI enables seamless, adaptive personalisation.

Yet, while AI enhances efficiency, it also introduces new challenges. Automated systems are far from flawless, and the risk of over- or under-filtering remains, particularly when navigating different languages and cultural nuances. AI also raises ethical concerns of potential biases, while the opacity of its decision-making process complicates accountability. Ironically, the very tools designed to prevent misuse may create unforeseen problems for brands. A “hybrid approach” that blends AI with human oversight seems crucial for managing these risks, ensuring personalisation remains both effective and ethically responsible.

But what if technology could go even further – shifting brand personalisation away from user-generated content and toward dynamic trade marks? In this model, brand owners, not consumers, would retain control, personalising branding in real-time based on consumer behaviour, preferences and contextual data.

Logos would adapt, dynamically changing colour, thickness, placement, patterns and motion effects in response to a person’s age, gender, shopping habits, fitness data or location. Instead of users crafting their own versions, brands, powered by AI, would handle the personalisation – offering a seamless yet controlled experience.

After all, if AI understands us better than we understand ourselves, why not let it handle our purchasing decisions entirely? But what would this mean for trade mark law?

Navigating the pitfalls of brand control in product and packaging personalisation – the 2022 edition

“In my own market research for dozens of Fortune 500 companies, I have found that the best way to communicate authenticity is to trigger personalization. Do audience members see themselves in the slogan… and therefore in the product? Unfortunately, achieving personalization is by no means easy” (Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear by Frank Luntz)

Brands are increasingly allowing consumers to personalise their products and packaging, reflecting a growing consumer demand – especially among millennials and Gen-Z – for tailored experiences. According to a 2019 Deloitte study, this shift is part of "The rise of mass personalization”, while Bain's research highlights how customisation can boost sales, enhance loyalty, and help brands better target specific consumer segments.

However, as the benefits are clear, the risks are equally significant. Personalisation through user-generated content often means relinquishing some degree of control over a brand’s identity. Allowing consumers to tinker with the brand’s image opens the door to unforeseen consequences, including the potential for offensive or damaging content. For brands, this underscores the importance of defining boundaries upfront – perhaps through a well-crafted personalisation policy – to help mitigate these risks while still offering the appeal of customisation.

Say it with a sneaker and say it loud!

Personalisation aims to enhance consumers’ sense of uniqueness and individuality. However, a product designed “just for you” is often shared with others. Thanks to social media, even short-lived products such as personalised cereal boxes or marmalade jars can be shared widely, sometimes reaching millions, with brands’ active encouragement.

While a customer's choice of mismatched colours for sneakers may cost them a few followers, it generally won’t harm the brand. But what about a photo of the same sneakers with a racist term embroidered on them, posted and shared thousands of times? Or what if a consumer adds a competitor’s logo to an already branded product?

These scenarios are a nightmare for IP counsel, as they can’t always be addressed through traditional enforcement or communication methods. With customers having the power to shape brand narratives, how can brands regain control once it’s been loosened?

Find out more in the second part of this article, available soon.

Most IP practitioners would probably answer "yes" if asked whether the title of a successful video game can function as a trade mark. However, can a relatively commonplace word, forming part of a fictional city within a video game, become so strongly associated with a single publisher through decades of use that it deserves trade mark protection in its own right?

A recent final decision of a Turkish Intellectual Property Court suggests that, under the right circumstances, the answer may also be yes. Yasemin Aktas explains.

The judgment is remarkable for several reasons. It recognised trade mark protection for a relatively commonplace word forming part of a fictional city despite the absence of an earlier national registration for that word.

Equally noteworthy is the procedural history of the case. The Court rendered its judgment at the first hearing, without appointing an expert panel, and the decision became final within approximately five months – an unusually swift outcome for Turkish trade mark invalidation proceedings.

Video games create brands, not just products

Unlike many traditional consumer products, successful video games rarely remain just software. They evolve into entertainment ecosystems.

Players do not simply remember the title of a game. They remember its fictional cities, characters, atmosphere, visual identity and stories. Over time, these elements become inseparable from the publisher behind them.

For that reason, fictional locations often acquire considerable commercial value. Consumers encountering those names may immediately think of a particular game franchise, even where the publisher's name is nowhere to be found.

This presents an interesting challenge for trade mark law. Protection may no longer be confined to the complete game title. Through long-standing and intensive use, individual elements within that title may themselves begin to function as indicators of commercial origin.

A fictional city – and one word within it

The recent Turkish judgment provides an interesting illustration of this evolution.

The dispute concerned a trade mark incorporating the dominant element of a fictional city appearing in a globally successful video game franchise. Rather than relying on an earlier Turkish registration for that dominant word, the claimant argued that more than 20 years of worldwide use had fundamentally changed how consumers perceived it.

The Court accepted that argument. After reviewing extensive documentary evidence, it concluded that the disputed word had acquired distinctiveness through continuous worldwide use and had become closely associated with a single commercial source.

It further found that the defendant had sought to capitalise on that reputation by adopting both the dominant verbal element and visual features recalling the claimant's game.

The procedural handling of the case is equally striking. Instead of referring the dispute to a court-appointed expert panel – as is commonly seen in Turkish trade mark litigation – the Court considered the documentary evidence sufficiently compelling to resolve the dispute itself.

Judgment was therefore rendered at the first hearing, and the decision became final only a few months later.

Acquired distinctiveness is ultimately about consumer perception

The most significant aspect of the judgment is not that it protects a fictional city.

It is that the Court recognised that one element of that fictional city name had, through decades of use, acquired an independent trade mark significance.

Standing alone, the word was neither invented nor particularly distinctive by nature. Yet continuous commercial use had gradually transformed the way consumers perceived it.

Rather than understanding it merely as an ordinary word, consumers had come to recognise it as identifying a particular fictional universe – and, ultimately, a particular publisher.

This is precisely what acquired distinctiveness seeks to protect. It is not the word itself that changes, but the perception of the relevant public.

The judgment therefore reminds us that distinctiveness is dynamic rather than static. It can be created through years of investment, commercial success and consistent consumer exposure.

Looking beyond the register

Another interesting aspect of the judgment is the Court's emphasis on genuine ownership.

Rather than limiting its analysis to registration certificates, it examined who had actually created, developed and commercially exploited the fictional world over many years.

This approach reflects the realities of the gaming industry.

Modern game publishers invest enormous resources in building fictional universes through advertising, merchandising, licensing, streaming platforms, esports, online communities and social media. Those investments often generate recognition extending well beyond what appears on the trade mark register.

The decision demonstrates that, in appropriate circumstances, Turkish courts are prepared to look beyond formal registrations and consider the broader commercial context in which consumer recognition has developed.

Practical takeaways

The judgment should not be interpreted as reducing the importance of trade mark registration. A comprehensive trade mark portfolio remains the strongest and most predictable form of protection.

It does, however, highlight the evidential value of continuous use. Historical advertisements, archived websites, gameplay footage, press coverage and social media activity may ultimately prove decisive in demonstrating how consumers perceive a particular sign.

Equally, businesses should exercise caution when adopting names inspired by successful entertainment properties. Simply adding descriptive expressions such as Gaming, Studio or Interactive may not sufficiently distance a later sign where consumers continue to recognise its dominant element.

Trade mark principles adapt to market reality

The importance of this judgment lies not in recognising that a video game title can function as a trade mark – few practitioners would dispute that proposition.

Its real contribution is more subtle.

It demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, decades of continuous use may transform a relatively commonplace word into a distinctive source identifier deserving trade mark protection in its own right.

More broadly, it reminds us that trade mark law is ultimately concerned with consumer perception. Where consumers no longer perceive a word in its ordinary sense but instead recognise it as identifying a single commercial source, the law may be prepared to protect that association – even where it has been built around a fictional world.

As fictional universes continue to evolve into some of the gaming industry's most valuable commercial assets, decisions such as this illustrate how traditional trade mark principles are adapting to the realities of modern entertainment brands.

Yasemin Aktas is a Partner of ABION in Istanbul and a member of the MARQUES Dispute Resolution Team. She represented the plaintiff in the case discussed

The revised EUIPO Boards of Appeal Rules of Procedure (BoA-RoP) entered into force on 1 July 2026.

The revisions include updates to existing provisions and the introduction of several new provisions for appeal proceedings concerning GIs for craft and industrial products (CIGIs).

New provisions for appeal proceedings concerning CIGIs

New provisions have been introduced for appeal proceedings concerning CIGIs.

These include provisions on the participation of Member States in GI appeal proceedings, consultation of the Advisory Board, the integration of the GIportal, exceptions to the requirement of mandatory professional representation for non-EEA parties in GI appeal proceedings, and language and notification rules for cross appeals involving Member States or their single points of contact.

Joint extension requests and joint suspension requests

As regards joint extension requests (Article 3(6) BoA-RoP) and joint suspension requests (Article 44(5) BoA-RoP), the practice of the BoA is now aligned with the Office’s first-instance practice.

For joint extension requests, the Registrar is empowered to grant more than only six months of extension. For joint suspension requests, the first suspension shall be granted by default for six months.

Any subsequent joint suspension request shall be granted for 18 months (or for the remaining period up to a maximum of two years per instance), regardless of the period requested by the parties, but with the possibility of opting out unilaterally.

Suspension due to mediation

In cases where a time limit was interrupted because of mediation, it shall continue as from the day on which the proceedings are resumed, in accordance with Article 170(5) EUTMR.

Remaining time limits do not restart when the appeal proceedings are resumed (Article 44(10) BoA-RoP).

Cases in which all earlier rights have ceased to exist

Article 42(1)(a) BoA-RoP has been deleted and new Article 42 bis BoA-RoP has been introduced.

According to this, in cases where all the earlier rights on which an opposition or an application for a declaration of invalidity is based have ceased to exist, the BoA shall (a) reject the opposition or the application for a declaration of invalidity as unfounded and (b) order the opponent or invalidity applicant to bear the costs of the appeal and the underlying proceedings pursuant to Article 109(1) EUTMR.

Order on costs

The BoA shall not issue an order on costs provided that (i) a joint statement by both parties is submitted to the BoA confirming the parties’ agreement on costs, or (ii) evidence of the parties’ agreement on costs is submitted by one party.

Where only a unilateral statement by a party is submitted alleging an agreement on costs, but without submitting evidence of this agreement, the Board shall issue an order on costs ex officio.

This means that if only one party alleges – without proof – that there is an agreement on costs, the BoA shall no longer (i) ask the other party to confirm the alleged agreement on costs or (ii) ask for proof of the alleged agreement.

More information

The amendments were adopted by the BoA Presidium on 10 June 2026, following a public consultation with stakeholders, including MARQUES.

Based on the feedback received from the User Associations, the BoA Presidium decided to maintain the separate document requirements in Articles 35(1), 36(1) and 38(1) BoA-RoP.

The revised Rules of Procedure are available on the EUIPO website. The revised Rules will be translated into all Office working languages.

This summary is based on information sent to MARQUES on behalf of the President of the Boards of Appeal.

WIPO has announced that Jersey will be an independent designation under the Madrid System from 1 August 2026.

Jersey is an autonomous British Crown Dependency and is the largest of the Channel Islands, situated off the north-west coast of France. It has a population of just over 100,000 and its main industries include financial services, agriculture and tourism.

Up to now, designating the UK in an international trademark application or subsequent designation automatically extended protection to Jersey.

However, from 1 August, it will be necessary to select Jersey as a separate designation when filing a new application, a subsequent designation or a renewal. Fee amounts will be published on the Madrid System individual fees page when they are available.

WIPO points out that, when designating Jersey, applicants must declare that they intend to use the trade mark, or permit its use, for the listed goods and services. The declaration will be built into relevant forms.

From the same date, Jersey will have its own office or origin, the Jersey Registrar of IP, where Jersey-based applicants will file international applications.

Existing registrations

For registrations designating the UK and recorded before 1 August, WIPO will automatically record a Jersey designation. From that point, the UK and Jersey designations will operate independently.

If the UK refusal period has not yet expired, WIPO will only record a Jersey designation once the UK issues a statement of grant of protection or a final decision granting total or partial protection. If the registration is refused or invalidated in the UK, WIPO will not record a designation for Jersey.

More information about the Madrid System is available on WIPO’s dedicated page.

EUIPO will consolidate its online filing tools on 1 July to create a single, clear filing experience.

As part of the update, the Easy Filing forms will be integrated into the standard online filing process.

In an announcement, EUIPO stated: “The change aims to simplify navigation and reduce duplication between tools, making it easier for users to identify the appropriate filing option and complete their applications. The filing process itself remains unchanged. Applicants will continue to submit trade mark and design applications through the EUIPO website using the standard online forms. Fast Track examination remains possible if applications comply with the required conditions.”

EUIPO will continue to offer tools such as Early TM Screening, allowing trade mark applicants to carry out an initial pre-assessment before submitting an application.

In preparation for the update, information and guidance on the EUIPO website will be updated. Further support is available through EUIPO Online, the help pages and user assistance services.