One application can protect a trade mark across the 27 Member States of the European Union. That unitary reach explains why a change in EUIPO practice can alter the risk profile of a filing, opposition or revocation action across the entire EU.
In force since 1 July 2026 under Decision EX-26-09, the new edition is not legislative reform. It is, however, the operational reference used by examiners and practitioners. It requires a fresh look at clearance scope, the validity of earlier rights, specifications, procedural calendars and evidence.
The EUIPO’s official summary of the 2026 edition reveals seven changes with particular significance for trade mark portfolios.
Geographical indications: the principal methodological change
Ex officio review extending beyond comparable goods
Following legislative reforms and T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE / Champagne, the EUIPO has clarified examination under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR. The Office may raise an objection beyond identical or comparable goods and related services where the available information indicates exploitation, weakening, dilution or detriment to the reputation of a geographical indication.
Clearance can no longer stop at trade mark registers. It should cover agricultural, wine, spirit, craft and industrial GIs, generic terms, the European consumer and the composition of processed goods. Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 extends this vigilance to sectors including textiles, glassware, jewellery, porcelain and furniture.
Restricting the specification is not always enough
Restricting a specification to goods complying with the relevant product specification may create a favourable presumption where the GI is used for identical goods or related services. The presumption can be rebutted. It will not cure an objection where the GI is evoked for other goods or services, or where a protected product is an ingredient, part or component of a processed product.
In opposition, Union registers and extended GIview data may make a GI easier to substantiate. The Guidelines also incorporate T-406/24, PriSecco / Prosecco, and clarify the treatment of craft and industrial GIs. For collective EUTMs consisting of a GI product-specific logo required by the relevant product specification, the Office will no longer object systematically on the basis that the sign will be perceived as a GI rather than a collective mark.
A sound European Union trade mark filing and enforcement strategy must therefore test the sign, specification, GI registers and message conveyed to the public before filing.
Geographical indications and trade marks: examination extends beyond identical goods.
Opposition: checking the right, calendar and procedure
The Court of Justice judgment of 5 February 2026 in C-337/22 P, Ape tees / DEVICE OF APE HEAD, confirms that an earlier right relied upon in opposition must remain valid until the decision. A missed renewal, cancellation or poorly documented chain of title can therefore undermine pending proceedings.
The new edition also changes the treatment of certain grounds. Where an opponent relies on a right that is ineligible under Article 8(4) EUTMR, the opposition will now be rejected as inadmissible rather than unsubstantiated. This classification allows the file to be closed earlier.
A second or subsequent request for an extension no longer requires supporting evidence as a matter of course. The request must still be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances. After an initial six-month joint suspension, a further joint request triggers an automatic extension of 18 months, up to the two-year maximum, with either party able to opt out. Reduced documentary formality does not reduce the need for precise deadline management.
Comparison of signs: typography does not create a new right
For two word marks, the use of upper-case or lower-case letters no longer affects the comparison. “ORION”, “Orion” and “orion” must be treated as the same word sign. A non-stylised or slightly stylised single letter is considered to have weak inherent distinctive character.
For short signs, a structured trade mark similarity analysis should distinguish the legal identity of the sign, visual proximity and the overall impression created by its graphic elements.
Evidence and genuine use: building the file before the dispute
Part A now includes new guidance on evidence and the burden of proof. Each party remains responsible for establishing the facts relied upon through an intelligible evidential chain that can be tested by the other party.
For genuine use, the 2026 edition provides more detail on independent subcategories. Use shown for certain products will not necessarily maintain protection for an entire category. Invoices, catalogues, website captures, distribution data and advertising must be tied to the sign used, period, territory and goods concerned. Volume does not repair a missing evidential link.
Genuine use should be monitored through an evidence matrix recording, for each product, the item, date, territory, sales channel and version of the sign.
Filing, evidence of use and proceedings: three connected levels of review.
Revocation and conversion: measuring the effects before filing
A non-use revocation application may be inadmissible for abuse of law or process, but only in the exceptional circumstances identified in R 2445/2017-G, Sandra Pabst. A commercial objective or related dispute is not enough to establish abuse.
Requesting an earlier effective date of revocation does not require a legitimate interest, although that date may affect agreements, completed acts or parallel proceedings. R 1508/2019-G, Zara, also governs conversion following revocation where the applicant relies on genuine use under the law of a Member State. Any invalidity or revocation strategy before the EUIPO should therefore address national law and territorial evidence before the application is filed.
Finally, following decision R 1508/2019-G, Zara, Part E of the Guidelines clarifies the examination of a request for conversion filed after a European Union trade mark, or an international registration designating the European Union, has been revoked for non-use. Where the proprietor requests conversion for a Member State on the ground that the mark has been put to genuine use in that State, the question must be assessed under the national law of that Member State. The applicable national law and the territorially relevant evidence of use should therefore be anticipated within the conversion procedure itself, rather than, as a general rule, before any invalidity or revocation action is brought.
Collaboration between lawyers and patent and trade mark attorneys
Two complementary workstreams converging into one coherent, usable file.
The lawyer defines the legal basis, procedural strategy and relationship with national litigation. A patent and trade mark attorney who also acts as a court-appointed expert brings a technical reading of the register, specification, signs and evidence. This division of work avoids building a legally sound argument on an unusable factual record.
Composite case study, provided solely for illustration. A company has six weeks to prepare the European launch of a tableware range under a name evoking a region. The trade mark search reveals no decisive obstacle. Joint review nevertheless identifies a craft or industrial GI and a risk of evocation that the proposed restriction would not cure. The lawyer characterises the risk under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, while the attorney checks GIview, the claimed goods and available alternatives. A new name is selected before filing and the specification narrowed to the activities actually planned. The launch remains on schedule without waiting for an objection or rebranding after the campaign has started.
For the instructing lawyer or legal department, recording the analysis, sources and rejected alternatives also strengthens decision traceability and professional risk management.
Frequently asked questions
Do the 2026 Guidelines apply to pending proceedings?
They describe Office practice from 1 July 2026. The relevant act, transitional rules, applicable regulations and case law must be checked for each file. Earlier practice does not automatically create an acquired right.
What happens if the earlier right expires during an opposition?
The right relied upon must remain valid until the decision. Its status, renewal and ownership should therefore be monitored throughout proceedings, not only when the opposition is filed.
Can a restricted specification always overcome a GI objection?
No. A restriction may create a favourable presumption, but it can be rebutted. It may remain insufficient where the sign evokes the GI or a processed product incorporates the protected product.
Is a second extension granted without reasons?
No. Supporting evidence is no longer required systematically, but the request must be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances. The Office retains discretion.
How should genuine use be secured for a broad category?
Each item should be tied to a product, period, territory and the sign used. It must then be determined whether the evidence supports the entire category or only an independent subcategory.
Why instruct Dreyfus
Nathalie Dreyfus is a French patent and trade mark attorney and is included in the 2026 national list of experts approved by the French Court of Cassation, under category E-09.02 “Trade marks”. She is also listed as an expert with the Paris Court of Appeal for 2026. Her entry can be verified through the French National Council of Court Experts directory.
This combined experience in trade mark strategy and expert evidence anticipates how a specification, earlier right or item of evidence may be challenged before the Office and, if necessary, a court.
Turning the Guidelines into verifiable decisions
The 2026 edition does not overturn the principles of the European Union trade mark. It does impose greater discipline: search beyond trade marks, maintain the rights relied upon, reason procedural requests and build evidence by product and territory.
To audit the effect of these changes on a filing, opposition or existing portfolio, contact Dreyfus for an initial confidential discussion.
Dreyfus & Associés law firm partners with a global network of lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property.