Introducing direct CTM filing - Advantages of using our services
When filing a European Community Trade Mark (CTM), non-EU colleagues have often chosen the WIPO (Madrid Protocol) way as there was no need for legal representation from an EU country, and also, it has appeared less complicated because they could file the application to their local office. However, the Madrid/WIPO way - going through the national patent office and the WIPO - is significantly slower and more risky, at the same time it costs no less than direct CTM filing.
You may already know that the Community Trade Mark grants its owner an exclusive right in the 27 member states of the European Union, and the registration can be obtained in one single application procedure at a reasonable cost. With 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share of the nominal gross world product, so this is one of the most important segments of the world market. Our news for you is that there is a better option than the WIPO way.
Direct CTM filing has advantages such as:
Procedure time is 5-6 months which is less than third of the Madrid/WIPO way`s time (18 months)!
- In 2009 more than ¾ of the European Trademark applications were filed electronically. All of our applications were also filed electronically, because electronic filing means a faster process (meaning that OHIM registers the mark faster) and lower official fees when compared to paper base application.
- If you use www.trademark.eu for CTM filing, all correspondence is administered electronically, which makes things faster and which is also more environmental friendly than paper-based administration.
CTM is independent of the national trade mark (the basic registration), unlike the Madrid/WIPO way where the mark remains dependent on the mark registered by the office of origin (basic registration) for a period of 5 years. If protection of the national trade mark (the basic registration) is not upheld, say the the trade mark has been the subject of a final decision of rejection, revocation, cancellation or invalidation (eg. because of a "central attack"), the CTM is bound to be cancelled as well.
This dependence is absolute, and is effective regardless of the reasons why the basic application is rejected or is withdrawn or the basic registration ceases to enjoy, in whole or in part, legal protection. The process by which an international registration may be defeated for all countries in which it is protected, by means of a single invalidation or revocation action against the basic registration has become generally known by the term "central attack".
Under the Madrid Protocol, there is an increased risk of the holder who chooses to base his international registration on an application with the Office of origin losing his protection as a result of the basic application ceasing to have effect. This is usually the result of a "central attack", in the sense of an action brought by a third party. The basic application may be refused protection, totally or partially, on absolute grounds or because of the existence of a prior right cited ex officio in the examination procedure, or as a result of an opposition by the holder of such earlier right in that territory. In all these cases, and provided the decision in respect of the basic application is final (that is, no longer subject to review or appeal), the international registration will be cancelled, either totally or partially. For more details see this page.
Only 1170 USD official fee (+ some service fee, see below) whereas the Madrid/WIPO way`s filing cost can reach as high as 2120 USD (*in case of single CTM filing).
Fees are up to 3 classes, on actual EUR/USD course , based on the service fees of www.trademark.eu. WIPO official fees include basic and individual fee as well as forward fee. In the case of bulk filing, the fee is an estimate.
Your application will automatically be accompanied by legal representation when forwarding it to the OHIM (EU trademark authority). Legal representation is provided by Georg Pintz & Partners, one of the leading trademark law firms in the European Union and in Hungary. A high level of services for reasonable prices is guaranteed.
All foreign applicants must be represented before the Office (OHIM) by a professional representative from an EU member state.
This means that you can in fact start the application process yourself, wherever you are located on the globe, but if the applicant`s domicile falls outside the EU, you will soon receive a letter from OHIM, a notice regarding the absence of formal requirements. You will have two months to get a representative from the EU.
- a legal practitioner qualified in one of the Member States and having his place of business within the Community,
- a professional representative whose name appears on the list maintained for this purpose by the Office.
The lawyers of www.trademark.eu are specialized in this field with a broad knowledge of the office practice and several years of experience. For a list of reference trademarks visit the site of OHIM and search by "representative name" for the word PINTZ: all trademarks in the long result list are represented by us.
Georg Pintz & Partners’ team is exhibiting at the INTA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC (5-9 May 2012). We are presenting our new onlineservices to the IP community, and we would be happy to welcome you at our booth No. 336.Georg Pintz & Partners: The winner of the 2011 Hungarian - Trademark Law Firm of the Year Award
The World has lost a Visionary — said Barack Obama, the president of the United States of America referring to the passing of Steve Jobs, founder of Apple Inc. Steve Jobs started his enterprise in his parents’ garage in 1976, and finally made it to be one of the leader computer companies in the world. In this post we would like to examine the changes of the Apple trademark and to commemorate this wonderful man.Summit Entertainment is suing Tom Markson, who is the owner/operator of www.twilight .com since 1994. Summit claims that Markson is illegally using Twilight trademarks and copyrights. In L’Oreal and Others v eBay the Court of Justice tightened the liability of operators in the field of controlling commerce on the online market.