REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Have your say on IPO fast track trademark opposition procedure

No items found.
​
April 15, 2013
Additional information
Chevron icon
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

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

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​