EUIPO has published a study titled “The development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) from a Copyright perspective". It is available to download on the EUIPO website here.

The purpose of the study is to deepen the general understanding of GenAI's technical functioning, as well as existing and developing solutions underlying the application of EU rules on copyright and AI.

It is based on desk research, interviews with experts and analysis of technical solutions and practices. The study was conducted in close collaboration with relevant European Commission services.

The study centres on three areas: (1) The use of copyright-protected works as training data for GenAI models, (2) the generation of new content by these systems, and the legal questions this raises, and (3) the wider implications for creators, AI developers and the copyright ecosystem.

Its key findings are:

• Access to high-quality content is central to the development of GenAI services. The AI training process is complex and uses content as input at different stages. However, as GenAI models are “specialised” for certain functionalities they need access to high quality and up-to date content, which is reflected in emergence of a direct licensing market, with some GenAI developers licensing access and use of high-quality content from copyright holders. The capacity for copyright holders to effectively reserve their rights is a pre-requisite for the licensing market to develop.
• No ‘one-size-fits all’ solution for copyright holders to protect their rights has emerged yet. Instead, different approaches and solutions are developing for copyright holders to protect their rights, and for AI developers to respect their regulatory obligations: On the one side, the rights reservation mechanisms for the INPUT phase (related to training AI models), whereby rightsholders can express their opt out from the ‘text and data mining’ (TDM) exception. On the other side, transparency measures exist for the OUTPUT phase that allow the indication and recognition of AI generated content.
• Public authorities, such as national IP authorities and the EUIPO, may play a role by providing technical support (for copyright holders to reserve their rights, and for AI developers to effectively respect such reservations) as well as non-technical support (e.g., public awareness, forums for technical information sharing, providing information to the public on available solutions, trends and developments).

Since 2012, the EUIPO has been managing the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights, with the mission of improving the understanding of the scope and impact of infringements of IP rights, including industrial property rights, copyright, and rights related to copyright.

In the field of copyright, the EUIPO is already responsible for establishing and managing the EU orphan works database (since 2012) and the public single online portal for out-of-commerce works (since 2019). It will launch the Copyright Knowledge Centre in November 2025.

“This report offers essential insights into the intersection of copyright and Generative AI. Its strength lies in its practical orientation. It provides policymakers, rightsholders, AI developers, and intermediaries with concrete data, legal analysis and recommendations on how IP offices such as the EUIPO can play their part in improving the status quo. It highlights where legal certainty is needed, where technical and licensing solutions can be improved, and where deeper cross-sector dialogue is essential. This is not just a study – it is a call to coordinated, forward-looking action”, said João Negrão, the EUIPO Executive Director.

Picture from EUIPO website

MARQUES is pleased to announce that the Italian “Meet the Judges” Symposium has been rescheduled to take place at the OFF/OFF Theatre, at Via Giulia 20 in Rome, on Thursday 2 October 2025.

This event will be a roundtable discussion involving eminent Italian judges, members of the Italian and EUIPO Boards of Appeal and industry representatives.

Topics covered in the discussion will include: proof of use; protection of well-known trade marks, including heritage brands; showing reputation and acquired distinctiveness through market surveys; patronymic trade marks; how to deal with gaps between market realities; and the restrictive examination practices for non-conventional signs as trade marks.

The event will start with a Buffet Lunch at 12.30 and will conclude with a Drinks Reception at 18.00. It will be conducted exclusively in Italian.

Registration fees are €325 for MARQUES members or €450 for non-members. Accreditation of this Symposium for the purpose of the professional training credits will be requested to the Italian Ordine dei Consulenti in Proprietà Industriale and the Ordine degli Avvocati of Rome.

Please mark the date of this event in your calendar so as not to miss out on this important opportunity to discuss trade mark developments with distinguished judges and other experts.

Further details, including the full agenda and the opening of the registration portal, will be available on the MARQUES website soon!

The global trade in counterfeit goods in 2021 was valued at about $467 billion and accounted for 2.3% of total global imports, according to a new study by EUIPO and the OECD.

The study, Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025: Global Trends and Enforcement Challenges, was published on 6 May 2025.

It provides information on the key characteristics trade in counterfeits globally and in the EU based on the most recent global Customs seizure data, which dates from 2021.

According to the study, the value of imports of fakes into the EU in 2021 was estimated at €99 billion, and accounted for 4.7% of imports from the rest of the world.

It also found that China and Hong Kong are the main provenance economies of counterfeit goods, followed by Türkiye. However, counterfeiters are increasingly using international waterways, adopting localisation strategies to produce fakes closer to end markets and using free-trade zones.

The top categories of fakes include clothing, footwear and accessories such as handbags but about 50 distinct product categories (out of 96) appear in Customs seizure data.

The study found that counterfeiters exploit online platforms and logistics to infiltrate legitimate trade, and postal services are emerging as the primary channel for distribution of small parcels.

The methodology for the study was developed by the OECD in 2008 and has been enhanced by the two organisations since.

EUIPO states: “Strengthening enforcement requires better coordination, information sharing and collaboration with rights holders and trade intermediaries. Enhanced engagement with trade intermediaries, including postal and shipping services, is critical to curbing illicit trade and safeguarding global supply chains.”

More information, including a link to download the study, is available on EUIPO’s website here.

The picture shows the cover of the study

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and Internet Commerce Association UDRP Review Project Team have published their initial report.

The full initial report and executive summary of recommendations are available on WIPO’s website. The core message is to carefully maintain the good functioning of the UDRP.

The purpose of the Review Project is “to provide ICANN with assistance in finding a more efficient, focused, and practical way forward by providing crucial background information that can help direct the Phase 2 Review” of Rights Protection Mechanisms being carried out by ICANN.

The report is based on input from 16 UDRP experts and 28 specific subject matter experts.

It identifies the following areas of unanimity among the Project Team: loser pays; fee payment deadlines; reviewing and reinforcing ICANN’s role in compliance; providing UDRP-related information for registrars; regulating complaint withdrawals; clarifying registrar verification procedures; identifying dissenting panellists; ICANN contribution to the UDRP; educational materials; mediation; laches/statute of limitations; scope of UDRP; name redaction; and registrars to provide additional notice

Areas where there is no unanimity, but consensus is potentially achievable, are: appeals layer; changing “and” to “or”; supplemental filings; expedited or summary procedures; remedy: true cancellation; panellist appointment, accreditation and quality; codification of case law; free speech; and decision format.

Feedback on the report can be provided until 27 June 2025 via WIPO’s website here. WIPO and ICA will submit a final report to ICANN after that.

The report was showcased at the conference marking the 25^th anniversary of the UDRP, which was held last week. A number of MARQUES members joined either in person or online.

Memorandum Circular No 2025-009 sets forth the Rules and Regulations for the Declaration and Creation of the Register of Well-Known Marks in the Philippines.

It takes effect on 28 April 2025, and institutionalizes an administrative procedure of having a mark declared as well known.

Prior to the circular, the only way to have a mark declared as well-known was when a competent authority, such as the Bureau of Trade Marks or a court, declared it as such in the course of opposition or litigation.

Well-known criteria

In determining whether a mark is well known, the following criteria or any combination of them may be taken into account. However, (1), (2), (3) and (4) must be included:

1. the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark, in particular, the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the mark, including advertising or publicity and the presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies;
2. the market share, in the Philippines and in other countries, of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies;
3. the degree of the inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
4. the quality, image or reputation acquired by the mark;
5. the extent to which the mark has been registered in the world;
6. the exclusivity of registration attained by the mark in the world;
7. the extent to which the mark has been used in the world;
8. the exclusivity of use attained by the mark in the world;
9. the commercial value attributed to the mark in the world;
10. the record of successful protection of the rights over the mark;
11. the outcome of litigations dealing with the issue of whether the mark is a well-known mark, if any; and
12. the presence or absence of identical or similar marks validly registered for or used on identical or similar goods or services and owned by persons other than the party claiming that their mark is a well-known mark.

Procedure

Applications are prosecuted ex-parte. However, any interested party may file a written observation once the application is published.

If no third-party observation is filed, or upon finality of a decision resolving a third-party observation, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) shall issue a certificate of well-known mark declaration and shall cause the said declaration to be entered in the Register of Well-Known Marks.

The IPOPHL shall also publish the contents of the Register.

If a trade mark previously declared as well-known by a competent authority in the course of litigation is not included in the Register, the trade mark owner or their authorised representative may file a manifestation to such effect with the Bureau of Trade Marks, attaching evidence of the declaration by the competent authority.

The mark previously declared as well-known may then be included in the Register upon the payment of the prescribed fees.

For marks previously declared by a competent authority as well-known, proof of continuous commercial use must be submitted within five years from the date of effectivity of the circular. Thereafter, the required proof of use must be submitted as provided further below.

Failure to submit the requisite manifestation and the proof of continuous use shall result in non-recordation of the previously declared well-known mark in the Register of Well-Known Marks, or the removal thereof, as the case may be.

Duration and renewal

The declaration of well-known mark shall be for a period of 10 years renewable for periods of 10 years.

The registrant is required to prove continuous use in commerce by submitting pieces of evidence such as receipts, actual labels, signages, bills of lading and photos of the product bearing the mark and well-known status by submitting proof such as advertisements, certificates of registrations and financial statements within one year from the fifth anniversary of the declaration and upon each renewal.

If the mark declared as well known is already registered with the IPOPHL, only the evidence of well-known status shall be required within one year from the fifth anniversary of the declaration and upon each renewal, without prejudice to the submission of the Declaration of Actual Use requirements under the Trade Mark Regulations.

Blog post written by Joseph Lyle K Sarmiento, Partner, BCCSLAW in Manila and a member of the MARQUES International Trade Mark Law and Practice Team

The Czech Arbitration Court recently ruled in favour of the EUIPO in a UDRP proceeding concerning the domain name euipp.com.

In the typosquatting case, the Panel found it was the respondent's intention to deceive and divert consumers, as evidenced by their dissemination of scam emails.

The respondent, Mark Traded, sought to take advantage of the EUIPO's goodwill and credibility, luring internet users into using services that may appear to be affiliated with the Office.

The panel acknowledged EUIPO’s reputation and the widespread recognition of the EUIPO mark, which is itself registered as an EU trade mark and as an international mark.

The respondent did not file an effective response to the complaint.

The panel concluded that: the disputed domain name was confusingly similar to EUIPO’s trade mark; the respondent had no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and it had registered and was using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In a post on its website, EUIPO stated: “This is the first time the Office has successfully relied on its registered EUTM in a domain name dispute resolution process. The ruling demonstrates how IP rights provide tangible enforcement benefits in holding scammers accountable for misleading consumers.”

As part of its Strategic Plan 2030, the EUIPO has intensified efforts to tackle fraudulent activities.

EUIPO has also secured criminal court rulings in Sweden and Germany in cases involving scams.

For more information on misleading payment requests, view the dedicated webpage on EUIPO’s website or speak to a member of the MARQUES Anti-Fraud task Force.

In 2021 the UK IPO launched its five-year 'Transformation Programme' to modernise and aggregate its services for different categories of intellectual property.

The findings of the 2^nd Consultation regarding the Programme were published last Thursday (10 April 2025); the responses relate to proposed changes in the following areas:

• online public document inspection service for trade marks and designs;
• rules governing public inspection of trade mark and design documents and requests for confidentiality;
• series trade mark service;
• length of supplementary protection certificate (SPC) fee payment periods;
• collection and publication of addresses for patent inventors; and
• ways to encourage more mediation during IPO tribunal proceedings.

Online trade mark and design documents

The Programme aims to create an online service where trade mark and design documents will be published and available for inspection online, much like the UK IPO's existing service for inspecting patents.

This is a significant update from the current system where trade mark and design documents have to be requested directly from the IPO.

The response from the consultation was favourable, though the IPO notes the concerns regarding confidentiality and potential data scraping by third parties.

Series mark service discontinued

The series mark service (in place currently) allows for a single trade mark application to contain up to six variations of a mark.

In order to qualify, the marks in question must resemble each other as to their material particulars and differ only as to matters of a non-distinctive character not substantially affecting the identity of the trade mark.

However, about 40% of series mark applications do not meet these requirements. The IPO intends to discontinue the system for series marks, and requested responses on its user experience.

The majority of the responses favoured the system. Respondents found the service practically very useful, given its low cost and administrative benefits, but some were confused about whether a series mark provides any actual or perceived additional protection compared to a standalone trade mark. Many respondents said that six is a good maximum number for a series.

There was general opposition to the removal of the series service altogether, because applying for standalone marks would come at an increased cost (both in terms of application fees and enforcement costs), and might create difficulties for existing, valid series marks.

Despite this feedback, the UK IPO intends to remove the series mark service: it estimates that a small proportion of applicants would need to make additional applications, and most customers would benefit from the simplification.

It would also put an end to the high volume of invalid series applications. The IPO says the costs of applying are “already low”, in response to criticism of its fees.

Mediation

The IPO believes that there is an imbalance between the high number of IPO Tribunal proceedings and the relatively low number of parties using its commercial mediation service.

It seeks to encourage mediation by introducing Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) into the IPO Tribunal process, in which parties would be briefed on the benefits of ADR and can see if their case is suitable to be mediated.

The IPO says it will introduce a Pilot MIAMs scheme for proceedings where there are private individuals on both sides.

Responses were broadly in favour of MIAMs taking place during proceedings, particularly for unrepresented parties, but warned that they would not like being “forced” to mediate.

What's next for the programme?

The IPO intends to launch its updated digital patent service later in 2025, followed by its online trade mark and design service in 2026.

Report by Gavin Stenton, Chair of the MARQUES International Trade Mark Law and Practice Team. The Team will continue to monitor this topic and report on any further developments.