直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

European IP Blog

Conversion of an EU Trade Mark; Procedure, Practice and Strategy

16 May 2019

Authored and Edited by Fionnuala P Richardson; Clare A. Cornell

As the EUIPO becomes stricter in its interpretation of marks which might be found descriptive, the need to consider converting EU trade mark applications into national rights is increasing. An application which has been refused on the basis that it is descriptive in the English language, for example, can be converted into national trade mark applications in all other EU member countries where English is not the national language. This is also applicable in an opposition procedure in Europe based on a national right where, for example, a German national registration might knock out an EUTM application but would not be applicable to prevent registration elsewhere in the EU.

Proprietors of an EU trade mark application or registration (EUTM) are able to convert the right into national applications as provided in Articles 139 to 141 of EUTM Regulation. It is possible to partially convert an EUTM, where the Applicant wishes to only file national applications for some of the goods and services contained in the original EUTM.  

Procedure & Practice  

When the EUTM has been withdrawn or ceases to have effect, the Applicant has a three-month period from the confirmation date of EUIPO to file an application for conversion. Where the EUTM is refused on absolute grounds or by third-party opposition, an application for conversion can be filed once the decision becomes final (once the 2-month time limit to appeal the decision expires). In the case of EU designations of International registrations, it is also possible to convert the right into national applications governed by WIPO once the designation has ceased to have effect (a process named ‘opting back’).

To start the conversion process, an application to convert and a conversion fee of 200 EURO is payable to the EUIPO who will examine the conversion application.

Examination of the conversation application by the EUIPO involves a formalities assessment to ensure the correct fee has been paid and the application has been made within the relevant time limit. In certain circumstances, the EUIPO will refuse an application for conversion, for example, if the EUTM was revoked on non-use grounds or if the EUTM was refusal or invalidated on grounds that also apply in the country for which conversion is sought. Where the absolute grounds refusal states that the decision only relates to a particular language, conversion of the EUTM is possible but only in territories where that is not the national language.

The application will then be sent to national offices. European national offices have different procedures, some re-examine according to the normal national procedure and the fees are comparable to a national application, other countries may allow the mark to register without further examination.                                    

Strategy

Conversion is typically used when registration of an EU application is blocked based on an absolute grounds refusal or successful third-party opposition action based solely on a national right. The process of conversion allows the Applicant to retain their EUTM filing date. While an application for conversion will be refused if the ground for refusal of the EUTM also applies in the country for which conversion is sought, Applicants are not prohibited from filing fresh national applications in that country. Seeking local advice is recommended on the basis that interpretation of the grounds for refusal can vary significantly between different national Intellectual Property Offices in Europe.

Another strategic consideration for Applicants is whether to withdraw their EUTM and file an application for conversion in order to prevent a final decision of refusal being issued by the EUIPO which would be publicly available on the EUIPO register.

For further queries on converting EUTMs into national applications or any other IP queries, please contact one of our IP practitioners in the London office for assistance.

Tags

European Union Trade Mark (EUTM), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Related Practices

Trademark Counseling and Prosecution

Contacts

Clare A. Cornell
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2815
Email

Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Redesigns Done Right at the ITC: Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Determination of Noninfringement of Redesigned Products

June 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Based on Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

June 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Mere Invalidity of Asserted Claims Does Not Render Patent Infringement Case Exceptional or Warrant Sanctions

June 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP