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

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.
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.