On 17 October, we held a quality meeting at BOIP with a group of IP professionals. During this meeting, BOIP's opposition, cancellation and refusal decisions were reviewed. This was all based on the theme ‘designations with (descriptive) meaning’. A theme that we often deal with at BOIP.
The group of IP professionals present was an enthusiastic group that was able to provide us with useful feedback from different perspectives, namely the professional IP representatives, attorneys at law and the business community.
Preparations
Prior to the meeting, participating IP professionals had been sent 10 decisions as well as a number of talking points, such as:
- What do you think of the structure and layout of the decisions?
- What do you think of the way descriptive word elements are taken into account in opposition decisions?
- What do you think of the way neutralisation is applied?
- What do you think of the way the descriptive character of signs is assessed?
- What do you think of the administrative treatment?
- What do you think of the speed?
There was also, of course, the opportunity for attendees to table decisions selected by themselves. Coincidentally, two days before the meeting, a number of new decisions of the Benelux Court of Justice had been published, which we could immediately address as well.
Report on the afternoon
After a pleasant lunch and a welcome speech by Hugues Derème, various points were raised in three sessions, led by Marjolein Bronneman and Camille Janssen.
We received compliments for accessibility and our human approach, the clarity of decisions and the handling of parties' arguments. For example, it was indicated that the presentation of the parties' positions and the “other factors” section in the decisions were appreciated. We also received kudos for understandable language.
Participants naturally also had constructive feedback. This concerned, for example, refining the structure of decisions, restraint towards neutralisation and keeping an eye for the right balance in respect of the adversarial process. Suggestions included starting decisions with a conclusion and clearly indicating when a decision deviates from the ‘standard’ structure. It was also discussed that a strict application of the Equivalenza doctrine, where the descriptive character of word elements is only taken into account at the stage of global assessment of likelihood of confusion, was preferred. It was also signaled that in certain cases there is purpose for an additional written round and that it would be nice if certain administrative matters were (further) digitised. We also understood that our Guidelines are difficult to find on the website.
The meeting ended with a convivial drink.
Follow up
Shortly after the meeting, we have already addressed some feedback points directly. For instance, you may have noticed that at the top of every opposition and cancellation decision there is now a short summary of the case. Also, the Equivalenza doctrine is applied more ‘cleanly’ and our Guidelines are now easier to find on our website under the heading Know how.
Furthermore, if it seems appropriate given the party debate, we will more often consider adding an additional written round. This may be desirable in bad faith cases, for example. We note that parties can also always jointly request an extra written round.
Points that we further endorse and to which our special attention will be devoted is the cautious handling of neutralisation and the (further) digitisation of administrative processes, such as the cancellation procedure.
To be repeated!
Together with the participants, we thought it was a very successful and useful pilot. It is therefore worth repeating! A next quality meeting will take place in autumn 2025.
Many thanks again to the IP professionals present this time: Sandra Bauwens, Arnaud Bos, Barbara Braat, Bart ten Doeschate, Franc Enghardt, Maarten Haak and Annick Hagenaers.
Thanks to your input, we can further improve our decisions and processes!
If you would like to attend a future quality meeting, please let us know by sending an e-mail to legal@boip.int. You will then be added to a ‘pool’ for future communication.
Marjolein and Camille