Common practices of the EUIPO and the member states
Common practicesfor enhanced transparency, consistency, certainty and predictability
TheEuropean Union Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN) is a network consisting ofthe European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the nationaloffices in the EU. The EUIPN has created a number of common practices designed to ensure thatapplications for trademark and design registration, as well as processing, areconsistent across National and Regional IP Offices of the member states andthat trademarks can be used after the registration. Common practicesare published in Common Communications.
CommonCommunications have no legally binding effect on the offices of the memberstates. Instead, they serve as compilations to inform about the understandingreached among the IPOs. Common Communications are compiled on thebasis of opinions expressed by the offices. The principles in CommonCommunications are generally applied. The purpose of CommonCommunications is to cover the majority of situations. However,the national offices consider each case separately and the principles in CommonCommunications are used as guidelines.
ThePRH has participated in the preparation of the following Common Communicationsand has for its part approved them.
Harmonisationof the classification practice for goods and services and a common classificationdatabase (CP1 and CP2)
In the projects, classification practices wereharmonised and TMclass was created. TMclass is a classification databasemaintained by the EUIPO together with national authorities. The database contains tens ofthousands of classification terms (indications of goods and services) inFinnish and Swedish approved by the PRH. The PRH participates in thevoting concerning TMclass classification terms and the maintenance anddevelopment of the database.
The classificationterms approved for TMclass can also be used in the electronic trademarkapplication.
Go to the TMclass classification database.
Acceptability of classification terms (CP1) (updated version)
CommonCommunication on the common practice on the acceptability of classification terms. The communication contains aset of guidelines that will help you to identify when any classification termis sufficiently clear and precise.
Interpretation of scope of protection of Nice class headings (CP2) (updated version)
This was formerly known as the Common Communication on the Implementation of ‘IP Translator’. The communication provides guidance on the interpretation of the scope of protection of trademarks containing entire Nice class headings.
Common Communication on the scope of protection of black and white (“B&W") marks (CP4) (updated version)
TheCommon Communication concerns the scope of protection of B&W and greyscalemarks as regards priority, relative grounds for refusal, and genuine use.
Finland has applied the common practice as of 1 May 2019.
Common Communication on thedistinctiveness of three-dimensional marks (shape marks) containing verbaland/or figurative elements (CP9)
The CommonCommunication concerns the distinctiveness of three-dimensional marks (shapemarks) containing verbal and/or figurative elements when the shape is notdistinctive in itself. The communication establishes a minimum threshold for distinctiveness ofthree-dimensional marks (shape marks) containing verbal and/or figurativeelements when the shape is not distinctive in itself.
This commonpractice will enter into force in Finland on 1 July 2020.
Common Communication on the representation of newtypes of trademarks
Thecommunication includes a compilation of the definitions and means ofrepresentation for the different types of trademarks, and the file formatsthat are used when applying for new types of trademarks and that are approvedin different member states.
Trademarklegislation has been reformed in the EU, and one of the key changes is that agraphic representation of trademarks is no longer obligatory in applications. This gives rise to the possibility of accepting new types of trademarks, filed in various formats.
The purpose of the communication is to avoid a risk thatoffices in different countries accept different types of trademarks, applydifferent definitions and impose different representation requirements.
Read the communication on the representation of new types of trade marks.Open link in a new tab
Common Communication on the use of a trademark in a form differing from the one registered (CP8)
The common practice concerns the assessment of the types of changes that can occur in the sign when used in a form differing from the one registered, namely when elements are added, omitted, modified or when these changes appear in combination.
Finland applies the common practice as of 15 January 2021.
Read the communication on the use of a mark in a form differing from the one registered on the EUIPO website.Open link in a new tab
Common Communication on examination of formal requirements and grounds for refusal of new types of marks (CP11)
This Common Communication concerns the formal requirements and grounds for refusal and/or invalidity of new types of trademarks – sound, motion, multimedia and hologram marks – and the new ways of representing them.
The common practice applies in Finland as of 14 April 2021.
Read frequently asked questions on the subject.Open link in a new tab
Common Communication on trade mark applications made in bad faith (CP13)
The Common Communication provides a common understanding of the notion of bad faith and of terminology related to its assessment. The Common Communication delivers principles on how to assess bad faith in trade mark applications, irrespective of the type of proceedings in which it is assessed.
Read the Common Communication on trade mark applications made in bad faith.Open link in a new tab
Read frequently asked questions on the subject.Open link in a new tab
Common Communication on trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality (CP14)
This document provides a common understanding on the concepts of public policy and accepted principles of morality, clarifying the relationship and the differences between these concepts. The document establishes criteria for the assessment of whether a sign is contrary to public policy and/or to accepted principles of morality. In addition, the document provides examples of signs that could be considered contrary to public policy and/or to accepted principles of morality.
Read frequently asked questions on the subject.Open link in a new tab
The EUIPO has also published the following Common Communications not approved by the PRH. Nevertheless, the PRH strives to follow the principles presented in these communications whenever possible.
Common Communication on distinctiveness (CP3) (updated version)
ThisCommon Communication concerns situations when a figurative mark containingpurely descriptive or non-distinctive words is deemed to be distinctive becausethe figurative element renders the mark as a whole with sufficient distinctivecharacter.
Common Communication on relative grounds of refusal (CP5) (updated version)
ACommon Communication on the common practice as regards non-distinctive or weakcomponents of marks for the purpose of assessing likelihood of confusion,assuming that the goods and/or services are identical.
Common Communication on treatment of evidence in trademark appeal proceedings (CP12)
This Common Communication concerns the filing and presentation of evidence, and the treatment of confidential evidence in trademark appeal proceedings. The purpose is to provide information on the admissibility of the types of evidence, means and sources of evidence, establishing the relevant dates of evidence, ways to present evidence and the confidentiality of evidence.
Read frequently asked questions on the subject.Open link in a new tab