Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Following the “Brexit” vote by the United Kingdom signaling its intent to leave the European Union (EU), there was a rush of speculation and guesswork about how EU trademark and design rights would be treated with respect to the UK after the 2019 Brexit. Brand owners, such as those in the entertainment and media industries, faced uncertainty about whether they needed to make parallel trademark filings in the UK, and what they needed to do protect their rights and their businesses. Most practitioners assumed that some provision would be made to ensure continuity during the transition, but it was largely guesswork at that time.
What progress has been made and what obstacles remain to a smooth transition? How will these changes impact brand owners with EU or UK trademark properties? The good news is that a roadmap has been drawn and largely agreed upon by both the UK and EU. However, other non-trademark issues still threaten to derail the ratification of these plans. Thus, brand owners need to be mindful of both the withdrawal progress and the status of their brands in order to ensure continuity of protection.
In March 2018, the EU published a draft agreement on the withdrawal. The draft proposed specifics for the “Continued protection in the United Kingdom of registered or granted rights.” On July 12, 2018, the British government published its own “white paper,” setting out its blueprint for the future relationship between the UK and the EU. British Prime Minister Theresa May made the point in this white paper that the United Kingdom will “leave the EU, without leaving Europe.” Shortly thereafter, on July 23, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) updated its website with a guide called “IP and BREXIT: The facts.” The guide set out the UK's position on the transition and its impact on trademarks, designs, patents, copyrights and enforcement.
The positive message to be gathered from the negotiations and various official documents so far is that the UK and the EU appear to agree on most of the major trademark/design issues involved in the transition. The UK in particular has been clear that its goal is to have a smooth transition and to minimize disruption for businesses. In the context of existing EU trademark holders, the UKIPO has stated that “the government aims to ensure continuity of protection and avoid the loss of those rights,” in any scenario. Assuming the withdrawal agreement is ratified, the parties generally agree that the transition will include the following:
Unfortunately, each of these terms will be included in the withdrawal agreement, and all of this progress may be lost if that agreement is not ratified by the deadline of March 30, 2019. At a press conference in Helsinki, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that while no one wants to see a no-deal situation, “I think the risk of a no Brexit deal has been increasing recently.” Sabine Weyand, deputy to the EU's chief negotiator, warned that business should “prepare for a disorderly Brexit.” If the withdrawal agreement is not ratified by March 30, 2019, there will be no transition period and EU trademark law will cease to apply in the UK as of that date. Businesses will need to hope that the UK will implement its own legislation to recognize or convert the EU trademark rights. The possibility of a no-deal Brexit is very real, and has been growing recently due to unresolved disputes over non-intellectual property issues.
How should brand owners prepare for the two very different scenarios of a deal-or-no-deal Brexit? Some analysts have recommended that brand owners file parallel applications in the UK for all of their EU marks. Others have argued against filing unnecessary applications unless there is a particular reason to do so. Whether the ratification occurs and whether other legislation is put into place in the alternative, obviously will dictate what steps brand owners must take. In the meantime, practitioners should plan for the worst and prepare clients for the possible need to file separate UK applications, at least on their most important marks, if it looks like the withdrawal agreement will not be ratified by March 30, 2019.
Even if Brexit occurs smoothly, counsel will need to pay attention to the next transition deadline of Dec. 31, 2020. Because pending EU applications will not be automatically registered in the UK by that deadline, practitioners will need to prepare clients for the possibility of filing separate applications in the following nine months. For practitioners with oppositions or litigation pending before the EUIPO or the Court of Justice of the European Union, care should be taken (before and during the transition) to make sure that substitute EU counsel is available and prepared to step in if necessary. Brand owners may want to identify brands that are critical to their businesses in the UK so that they can budget for the potential extra costs associated with “insurance” filings and additional counsel. Practitioners should continue to review the territorial scope of existing and pending trademark agreements, to ensure that references to the EU and UK have the same intended effect as when they were drafted. Petitioners should also prepare to record any relevant EU trademark agreements at the UKIPO to ensure that they carry the same effect as when recorded in the EU.
Brand owners should take comfort in knowing that both the EU and UK are continuing to work toward a smooth transition, and are committed to making the process as painless as possible for those brand owners. But brand owners and practitioners should also prepare for and budget for the very real possibility that the withdrawal agreement will not be ratified within the next six months. Brand owners should have a plan in place for their trademarks and designs in both deal and no-deal situations, and should monitor the withdrawal progress regularly.
*****
William Stroever is co-chair of the Intellectual Property Department at Cole Schotz in Hackensack, NJ.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.