The 6^th edition of the IP Case Law Conference hosted by the EUIPO Boards of Appeal is taking place this week. The theme is “Growing through change”.

Several MARQUES members are taking part in the Conference, which is being held in Alicante and online

In his opening remarks yesterday, EUIPO Executive Director João Negrão (right) said the IP landscape has shifted considerably in the 10 years since the Case Law Conference was first held. “Change also brings opportunity,” he said, adding: “We are living through change … without precedent.”

Stressing the importance of IP rights for innovation and growth, he said case law is the “foundation of trust, which makes the system work.” But he added that the law needs to keep pace as the volume and complexity of rulings demonstrates. “No single institution or jurisdiction can meet today’s IP challenge alone,” he said. “Nobody knows everything, but everybody knows something.”

“The pace of change in recent years has been rather remarkable,” said Savvas S Papasavvas, Vice-President of the EU General Court. In trade marks, he said, the general principles are established but the world of markets and advertising have changed the ways that brands relate to consumers.

“The intersection between trade marks and domain names has become part of a broader discussion about how brand identity is asserted and protected in the digital space,” he added, while the recent EU design reform reflects need for the design system to adapt as boundaries are constantly being tested.

Mr Papasavvas said the legal framework must continue to provide clarity while leaving space for innovation, particularly as new questions arise from AI, and that IP disputes do not respect borders: “Comparative perspectives are therefore invaluable.” He concluded: “Courts must apply legal principles with clarity, consistency and legal discipline.”

Sven Stürmann, President of the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO, celebrated the diversity of the Conference. “Diversity, inclusiveness and transparency are core values that we promote at EUIPO,” he said. “Change may be constant, but trust in legal outcomes must remain stable.”

“Change is no longer occasional or gradual; it is constant and increasingly rapid,” he said, increasing the need for broader understanding of access to justice, including clear, understandable and practical outcomes for those who rely on the system. “Our case law must be dynamic, responding to new technologies, business  models and societal innovations,” said Mr Stürmann.

In this context, he said dialogue is increasingly important, as well as willingness to rethink established approaches and adapt. “Legal quality is not achieved in isolation but built from dialogue, cooperation and shared responsibility throughout our IP community.” One thing we know, he said, is: “IP case law never stands still, and neither can we.”

A view from the EU Court of Justice

Judge Octavia Spineanu-Matei with Conference Master Thomas Frydendahl

In her speech on Friday, Octavia Spineanu-Matei, President of the 8th Chamber at the Court of Justice of the EU, discussed the filter mechanism introduced in Article 58a in 2019 regarding appeals from the EU General Court to the Court of Justice of the EU.

Since 2019, only eight appeals out of 301 have been allowed to proceed. Five were upheld, one dismissed and two are pending.

Most of the time the request was dismissed because it did not meet formal requirements, did not explain the significant issue, did not indicate the contested points or how the alleged error in law influenced the case. But Judge Spineanu-Matei said that she hoped that more appeals will be brought and allowed to proceed: “It would be a pity for an error to remain in the case law of the General Court.”

The first case in which an appeal was allowed to proceed was Case C-328/21 P KaiKai, a designs case which had significance beyond the law on designs and also had consequences for member states. Judge Spineanu-Matei also discussed Case C-93/23 P Neoperl concerning whether the General Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction and Case C-4111/25 P Versiontech relating to the scope of the General Court’s power to alter decisions of the Board of Appeal: this case is still pending at the Court of Justice.

Judge Spineanu-Matei said the lessons are that the request must be self-explanatory and must not exceed seven pages. It is not necessary to show the appeal is well founded but that it raises an issue of significance with respect to the unity/consistency/development of EU law. This issue must not only be alleged but also explained, and how the alleged error affected the outcome of the case must also be explained.

Look out for further reports from the Conference on the Class 46 and Class 99 blogs. You can find out more about the Conference on the EUIPO website here. Photos taken by MARQUES editor James Nurton