Have your say on IPO fast track trademark opposition procedure

No items found.
​
April 15, 2013

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has launched a public consultation on their plans for a simplified and more cost-effective trademark opposition procedure to run alongside the existing system.

Trademark holders, legal professionals, and others with an interest in trademarks are encouraged to have their say on the proposed procedural changes before 17 May 2013.

The changes would see the introduction of an opposition ‘fast track’ procedure within the Trade Mark Tribunal. This would only be open to brand owners seeking to oppose applications for new trademarks which are same as, or confusingly similar to their registered marks. More complex cases requiring the submissions of evidence would still need to use the existing procedure.

In addition, the plans would see a higher, refundable appeal fee for inter partes appeals to the Appointed Person. Head of EIP Brands, Simon Stanes has produced an executive summary of the proposals and issues involved.

The stated aim of the fast track is to improve access to opposition proceedings for SMEs by reducing their cost and complexity, whilst also increasing their speed. However, it does not appear that any detailed research has yet been carried out by the IPO. The extent to which the proposed fast track system could be used to block applications without providing the opportunity for a full defence remains unclear.

The IPO specifically invites comments from SMEs who have been discouraged from filing oppositions due to the cost and time involved or who conversely are happy with the current system.

It is vital that brand owners make their views known to the IPO, as the results of the consultation process are likely to be used as justification for any changes that are finally made.

Email the IPO with comments to: FastTrackOppResponses@ipo.gov.uk

Recent Case Reports

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.