Nathalie Dreyfus

Introduction

Trademarks are a key intellectual property asset for companies of all sizes. They enable you to differentiate your products and services from those of competitors and provide legal protection allowing you to defend your protected names and logos. If you are considering filing a trademark benefiting from protection throughout the European Union (EU), this article briefly explains the different steps to follow.

Step 1: Prior art search

The first step is to verify the availability of the trademark you wish to file. Before any filing, it is essential to carry out a “prior rights search” to ensure that the name or logo you wish to protect is not already registered by a third party for identical or similar products or services. This approach helps to prevent the risk of future legal conflicts.

At first, the EUIPO’s trademark search tool is a good starting point to obtain an initial indication of any identical prior rights, both among EU trademarks and national trademarks of the various EU member states.

For an EU trademark project, it is generally essential to carry out a more in-depth search. This can be done with the assistance of an intellectual property attorney who has access to specialized tools and the expertise necessary to identify not only identical but also similar trademarks that basic identity searches may miss.

If no blocking prior rights are detected, you can then move confidently to the next step of the filing process.

Step 2: Filing of the trademark

The second step is to complete a trademark application form. This form must include several pieces of information: the name of the trademark and/or logo, the name of the company that will own the trademark, its contact details, and the classes of the goods and services covered. Drafting the specification of goods and services should be done with the assistance of an attorney. Once the form is completed and submitted, you must pay a so-called “filing” fee.

Step 3: Examination of the trademark application

The third step is no longer under your control. Once the trademark application has been submitted to the EUIPO, it will undergo a rapid examination of the substantive and formal conditions that every trademark application must meet, including notably:

• Are the goods and/or services for which your trademark is filed correctly classified?
• Has the application been correctly completed?
• Has the fee been paid?

Please note: the EUIPO does not carry out a prior check of your trademark’s availability in relation to trademarks already registered in the European Union. However, it informs holders of earlier rights when a trademark application appears similar to their rights.

After this examination, the EUIPO will publish your trademark application in the Official Journal of the European Union. This informs third parties of your filing. From the date of publication, third parties have three months to oppose the registration of the trademark if they believe it infringes their own rights.

Step 4: Trademark registration

At the end of the examination process, the trademark is either accepted or refused for registration. If accepted, you will receive a digital registration certificate. This certificate provides proof of the legal protection granted to your trademark in the EU.

Finally, keep in mind that the EU trademark is protected for 10 years and is indefinitely renewable at the end of the initial protection period. A renewal fee must be paid to extend the protection for a new 10-year period.

Conclusion

To register a trademark in the EU and maintain its protection, each of these steps must be followed. The prior rights search is an essential prerequisite as it helps ensure, as far as possible, that no opposition will be filed after your trademark application.

Dreyfus & Associés can assist you at every stage of your trademark filing, from the prior rights search to its official registration, to secure your rights effectively.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. What is an EU trademark and what are its advantages?
An EU trademark (EUTM) is a single title granted by the EUIPO which provides uniform protection in all 27 Member States. It simplifies and centralizes the filing, management and enforcement of your rights in the EU.

2. How much does it cost to file an EU trademark?
Official fees start at €850 for one class of goods or services. Additional fees apply for each extra class. Attorney’s fees are charged separately.

3. Is it better to file a national trademark or an EU trademark?
This depends on your objectives and geographic scope. Filing a national trademark is often suitable for companies that are just starting out and targeting only the French market. However, opting from the outset for an EU trademark offers the advantage of a single protection in 27 Member States and anticipates future expansion of the project to other countries, even if the activity initially remains focused on France.

4. Is a prior rights search mandatory before filing a trademark?
It is not legally mandatory but is strongly recommended to identify identical or similar trademarks already registered and reduce the risk of opposition.

5. What happens if I forget to renew my trademark?
Do not worry: if you forget to renew your trademark at the end of the 10-year period, the law provides for a six-month grace period from the date of expiration. During this period, you can still renew and preserve your rights, but an additional fee will be charged on top of the standard renewal fee. After this period, the trademark falls into the public domain and must be refiled to regain protection.

Introduction

Registering a trademark is one of the most important steps in protecting it. A trademark is a sign or symbol that distinguishes your products and services from those of your competitors, and it can be a valuable asset for your business. But if you want to register a trademark in the EU, you will need to work with a lawyer or, more specifically, an Industrial Property Attorney (IPA), a professional specially qualified to assist you in this area. This article explains the cost of registering a European trademark when you seek the assistance of a lawyer or industrial property attorney.

Preliminary step: eligibility of the proposed sign as a trademark

The first step in the process of registering a trademark with a lawyer or industrial property attorney in the EU is to determine whether your trademark is eligible for registration. Under European law, a trademark must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of its owner from those of other companies. It must also meet other strict criteria:

• Non-descriptive character: the trademark must not consist exclusively of signs describing the quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, or origin of the goods/services designated.
• Non-generic nature: the trademark must not consist of signs or indications that have become customary in the current language of trade.
• The sign must not be contrary to public policy or morality.
• The sign must not be deceptive, i.e., it must not be likely to mislead the public as to the nature, quality, or origin of the goods or services.

The trademark must therefore comply with the conditions set out in the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 2015. If your trademark meets these criteria, you can proceed to the next step.

Determining the cost

The next step is to determine the cost of registering a trademark with a lawyer or industrial property attorney. The cost of registration varies depending on the number of classes of goods and services designated. In addition, the fees of the lawyer or industrial property attorney must also be considered, as well as optional costs such as those related to prior art searches.

Application submission and registration

Once the registration cost has been determined, you will then need to file an application with the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office). This application must include all the necessary information about your trademark, the subject of the registration, such as the sign (word mark or logo) and the classes of goods and services designated. The EUIPO will then examine your application.

If there are no oppositions filed against the trademark application, the registration process, from the date of filing to official registration, generally takes around four to six months.

Once accepted by the EUIPO, the trademark will be officially registered for a period of 10 years and you will receive a registration certificate.

2025 Update: What you need to know about official taxes

To ensure that this article remains up to date, it is important to note that the official filing fees of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) are subject to annual adjustments. It is essential to check the official fee schedules directly on the EUIPO website at the time of filing each year.

For example, in 2024, the basic fees for a European Union trademark (EUTM) covering one class have generally remained stable compared to 2023, but an increase in agency fees and specialized prior art search fees should be anticipated.

The importance of using an Industrial Property Attorney remains unchanged, as this professional ensures that your application complies with current regulations and administrative practices of the EUIPO.

Conclusion

The cost of registering a European trademark with a lawyer or industrial property attorney is an important consideration for any company wishing to protect its trademark. Although the cost of registering a trademark may vary, it remains a necessary and significant investment in the protection of your intangible assets, guaranteeing you protection for a minimum of 10 years (a trademark can be renewed indefinitely).

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. What is the European Union Intellectual Property Office?

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is the entity responsible for registering European Union trademarks (EUTMs).

2. Is a prior art search mandatory before filing a trademark?

A prior art search is not strictly mandatory for filing a trademark with the EUIPO, but it is strongly recommended. It allows you to check whether an identical or similar trademark already exists and to assess the risks of opposition, thus avoiding unnecessary costs and procedures.

3. What rights does registering a European Union trademark with the EUIPO confer?

Registering a European Union Trademark (EUTM) with the EUIPO provides uniform protection in all current EU member states. The filing fees cover this pan-European protection.

4. How long is a European trademark valid for?

The registration of a European Union trademark (EUTM) is valid for a period of 10 years from the date of filing the application and is renewable indefinitely for periods of 10 years.

5. What is an opposition procedure and how does it affect the registration timeframe?

An opposition procedure is legal action brought by the owner of an earlier trademark who believes that your new trademark application infringes on their rights. If an opposition is filed, the registration timeframe can be significantly extended (often by more than a year) and requires the intervention of your attorney or industrial property attorney to reply to the opposition.

Introduction

Since the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018, access to domain name registration data via WHOIS has been profoundly disrupted. Faced with increasing opacity adversely affecting trademark owners, cybersecurity professionals, and judicial authorities, ICANN has undertaken a structural overhaul of its data access architecture. From the SSAD project to the RDRS, alongside the adoption of the RDAP protocol and the new Registration Data Policy, the normative framework is being reshaped, with concrete and immediate implications for all intellectual property stakeholders.

WHOIS in the face of the GDPR: a structural reassessment

For more than thirty years, the WHOIS database constituted the reference tool for identifying domain name registrants. Following the entry into force of the GDPR in 2018, ICANN required registrars to remove or mask personal data of registrants in the public WHOIS database, giving rise to what practice has termed the “WHOIS blackout.”

For intellectual property practitioners, the impact is both immediate and lasting: the new opacity surrounding registrant identity directly complicates the enforcement of infringement rights. Henceforth, the only option consists in submitting a request to the relevant registrar, without any assurance as to the outcome, processing timelines, or the existence of a harmonized procedure.

This development places ICANN in a particularly sensitive position: it must reconcile its mission to preserve the stability and security of the global DNS with compliance with legal obligations relating to data protection, the extraterritorial scope of which is now well established. The institutional response to this challenge has been constructed through successive stages, each seeking to refine and further structure the framework.

The SSAD: A normative ambition hampered by its own complexity

Project genesis

The SSAD (System for Standardized Access/Disclosure) constitutes a centralized system project intended to regulate the processing of requests for access to non-public registration data and was published by ICANN in 2022. It follows on from recommendations 1 to 18 of the final report of Phase 2 of the EPDP (Expedited Policy Development Process) of the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization). The objective is to establish a single point of access enabling accredited requesters to obtain data, where appropriate anonymized, under predictable, transparent conditions compliant with GDPR requirements.

Operationally, this mechanism envisages, inter alia, the implementation of a unified process for creating and verifying requester accounts, a standardized request submission mechanism, and partial automation of disclosures in certain limited circumstances, in order to reduce the identification burden on contracted parties.

Obstacles leading to suspension

Despite its conceptual merit, the SSAD encountered prohibitive economic and technical realities. According to ICANN’s Operational Design Assessment, the implementation of the SSAD could require between USD 20 and 27 million in development costs, and more than USD 100 million annually in operating costs depending on adoption rates. The development of the system, entrusted to an external provider, was estimated at between 31.5 and 42 months, following two years of preliminary work by ICANN’s internal review team.

In February 2023, nearly five years after the GDPR entered into force, the SSAD project was officially placed on hold. ICANN then shifted to a more incremental and progressive approach, less ambitious but deployable in the short term: the RDRS.

The RDRS: the operational bridge until 2027

Architecture and functioning of the service

The RDRS (Registration Data Request Service) is a free, centralized system, available on a global scale for managing requests for access to non-public registration data of gTLDs (generic Top-Level Domains). It operates as a platform connecting, on the one hand, requesters demonstrating a legitimate interest and, on the other hand, ICANN-accredited registrars that have chosen to participate.

In practice, the service provides a unified framework for submitting requests, allows supporting legal documentation to be attached, enables the storage of reusable request templates, tracks case progress, and routes requests directly to participating registrars.

Access to the RDRS, is restricted to certain categories of users, including public authorities , intellectual property practitioners, consumer protection actors, cybersecurity specialists, and representatives of public bodies.

Practical Example: A law firm specializing in intellectual property, mandated to identify the registrant of a domain name reproducing a well-known trademark, may submit via the RDRS a request for access to registration data accompanied by relevant supporting evidence (industrial property title, evidence of infringement). The registrar must then respond within a certain timeframe, although disclosure of the requested data is neither automatic nor guaranteed.

Structural Limitations of the System

The RDRS aims to standardize the request submission procedure without harmonizing decisions relating to data disclosure. Each registrar retains decision-making autonomy and conducts its own legal assessment on a case-by-case basis in accordance with applicable law and ICANN policies.

Moreover, as participation is not mandatory, the system covers only a portion of domain names. In this respect, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) indicated during ICANN84 in Dublin that the RDRS provides access, at best, to approximately 60% of gTLDs.

Finally, by decision dated 30 October 2025, ICANN’s Board of Directors extended the system until December 2027, pending the work of the ICANN community aimed at defining a permanent standardized access and disclosure mechanism, such as the SSAD or any successor system.

This extension establishes a hybrid environment for the next two years: rights holders and investigative services retain an operational channel to submit requests; ICANN’s Board encourages the broadest possible use by requesters and registrars without imposing a general obligation; in parallel, ICANN has launched a public consultation on a roadmap addressing structural shortcomings, including access to data via proxy services, timelines applicable to urgent requests, and authentication mechanisms.

The registration data policy and the RDAP protocol: the new normative foundation

The Registration Data Policy effective as of 21 August 2025

The Registration Data Policy (RDP), adopted by ICANN and effective as of 21 August 2025, establishes a harmonized and structured normative framework governing the collection, processing, publication, and disclosure of domain name registration data by registrars and registry operators. It replaces the interim measures implemented in 2018 following the entry into force of the GDPR and aims to standardize data management practices across all gTLDs.

The main obligations introduced by the RDP include in particular:

• Limited publication: only non-personal data may be made publicly available via WHOIS/RDAP;
• Controlled disclosure: any access request must be justified, documented, and processed through a standardized procedure;
• Accuracy and reliability: regular verification of registrant information;
• Retention and security: protection and retention of data for the minimum period defined by ICANN (two years);
• Accountability and compliance: adequate documentation, technical measures, and cooperation with ICANN audits.

The RDAP protocol

Since 28 January 2025, the RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol) has become the reference mechanism for accessing registration data for generic top-level domains, intended to replace the WHOIS system, whose services are being progressively phased out.

Unlike WHOIS, which is based on plain text responses, RDAP relies on standardized and structured web formats enabling automated data processing by information systems. It also incorporates advanced functionalities, particularly in terms of internationalization, secure access to data, service discovery, and differentiated access to registration data.

Strategic implications for IP rights holders

The GDPR logic at the core of disclosure decisions

For European stakeholders, any disclosure request via the RDRS falls within the scope of Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, relating to legitimate interest.

In accordance with ICANN’s Temporary Specification for registration data, registrars may grant access to personal data to third parties demonstrating a legitimate interest.

However, such access is not automatic: it requires a balancing test between the requester’s interest and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the domain name registrant. Disclosure may only occur where the legitimate interest invoked does not disproportionately infringe those rights.

The temporary policy provides that registrars must grant reasonable access to personal data to third parties demonstrating a legitimate interest, unless the interests or fundamental rights of the domain name registrant prevail over those of the requester, in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

Towards a future SSAD reinforced by the NIS2 directive

The NIS2 Directive, with its reference to “legitimate requesters,” strengthens the likelihood that a finalized version of the SSAD will become an official ICANN policy. The envisaged prospects include prior accreditation of requesters, mandatory participation of registrars—unlike the voluntary nature of the RDRS and differentiated access rights depending on the requester’s profile (judicial authorities, law enforcement, IP rights holders).

Key Takeaways:

• The RDRS is operational until December 2027, but its coverage remains partial (~60% of gTLDs);
• The Registration Data Policy of 21 August 2025 now constitutes the new contractual framework for all registrars;
• The RDAP is intended to progressively replace WHOIS for access to domain name registration data, with a key milestone set on 28 January 2025;
• A permanent system (SSAD or successor) remains to be developed; its final architecture will be determined during the RDRS extension period.

Conclusion

The WHOIS data access system is undergoing a profound transformation, the final contours of which will likely only be determined by 2027–2028. Between the normative ambition of the SSAD, the operational pragmatism of the RDRS, and the regulatory consolidation driven by the Registration Data Policy and the RDAP protocol, ICANN is progressively building a GDPR-compliant registration data access ecosystem while seeking to preserve the legitimate interests of rights holders.

For intellectual property professionals, this transitional period requires a dual vigilance: mastering the RDRS procedures currently available while anticipating the normative developments that will reshape data access in the coming years.

Cybersecurity, the fight against cybersquatting, and online trademark enforcement depend directly on this.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

What risks do companies face if they cannot identify a domain name registrant?

The lack of direct access to the identity of a domain name registrant exposes companies to several operational and legal risks. It significantly delays infringement or cybersquatting actions by complicating the identification of the opposing party and the collection of evidence. This opacity may also delay interim measures (blocking, domain transfer) and increase costs associated with technical or judicial investigations. Ultimately, it weakens companies’ ability to effectively protect their intangible assets and to respond swiftly to online infringements.

Are WHOIS data access rules identical across domain name extensions (.com, .fr, .eu)?

No, access rules vary depending on registries and the legal frameworks applicable to each extension. While gTLDs (.com, .net, etc.) are governed by ICANN policies, ccTLDs (.fr, .eu, etc.) are subject to specific national or regional regulations. For example, certain European extensions apply stricter personal data protection rules, while others provide regulated access mechanisms for rights holders. This heterogeneity requires a case-by-case analysis in any international protection strategy.

Do judicial authorities have specific means to access non-public data?

Yes, judicial authorities and certain administrative authorities have specific mechanisms enabling them to obtain access to non-public data. Such access may occur in the context of judicial proceedings, requisitions, or official requests addressed to registrars. In some cases, international cooperation or sector-specific regulatory frameworks facilitate such access. However, these mechanisms remain regulated and subject to strict requirements in terms of proportionality and data protection.

How can companies adapt their trademark protection strategy in light of limited access to WHOIS data?

Companies must adopt a more proactive and structured approach. This includes strengthening domain name monitoring systems, systematically documenting infringements (screenshots, history, content), and using available channels such as the RDRS or alternative dispute resolution procedures (UDRP, URS). Furthermore, resorting to complementary intellectual property strategies (extended trademark filings, defensive domain name registrations) helps anticipate risks. Finally, support from experts becomes essential to navigate a more fragmented legal environment.

Will ICANN developments impact the fight against cybercrime and online fraud?

Yes, these developments have a direct impact on the effectiveness of actions against cybercrime. Limited access to data complicates the rapid identification of perpetrators of unlawful activities, potentially delaying investigations and remediation measures. However, the mechanisms under development aim to restore regulated access for legitimate actors, particularly for security and user protection purposes. The balance sought between data protection and security requirements will ultimately determine the effectiveness of mechanisms to combat online fraud.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and to highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.