EU trademark
registration

An EU trademark, often called an EUTM, is a single right covering the EU member states. It does not include the UK. The basic online application fee is €850 for one class; two classes cost €900 and three cost €1,050 in official application fees. Registration is subject to examination and possible opposition: payment is not an approval. [1][2]

For a business, the useful starting point is a short filing brief: the exact brand, the intended owner, the products and services it will identify, and any important launch dates. That brief gives the search and application a common reference point.

An EUTM offers a convenient way to hold one registration across the EU. Its unitary character also creates a shared risk: an earlier right in a single member state can affect the EU application. A conflict does not become irrelevant because most of your customers will be somewhere else. [1, Articles 1 and 8]

One EUTM registrationOne unitary right

27 member statesProtected together by the EUTM

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzechiaDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSweden

Separate protectionUnited KingdomSwitzerlandNorway

These territories are outside the EUTM. Examples, not a complete list.

Territorial schematic, not a geographic map. EU coverage does not mean every use of a similar sign infringes. Sources: EUTMR Article 1; UK IPO.

That does not make the EU route the wrong choice. It means the clearance review must match its reach. A search confined to your favourite market, or to exact matches on Google, does not answer the EU filing question.

For a new application, UK protection needs separate attention. Comparable UK rights created for older EU registrations were a specific Brexit arrangement; they are not a continuing extra benefit attached to new EUTMs. [2]

EU-wide coverage and an international filing route answer different questions. An EUTM is a territorial right. Madrid is a mechanism through which eligible applicants can request protection in selected member territories, including the EU. A WIPO international registration does not itself mean that every designated office has approved protection. [5]

A business focused on one market may have good reasons to choose a national right. Another may need an EUTM alongside existing national registrations. The choice should reflect commercial plans and clearance findings, rather than a rule that the widest territory is always best. National and EU systems coexist. [6]

Illustrative scenario: a business has a potentially relevant earlier French registration in its search results. That result needs legal assessment before an EU filing. Applying nationally elsewhere may be worth discussing, but it does not solve the French issue or guarantee freedom to trade. Conversion can sometimes preserve filing dates if an EUTM later fails, but it is a conditional fallback with extra costs, not insurance against a weak application. [1, Articles 8 and 139–141]

For an ordinary individual mark filed online, the official application fees are:

These figures are EUIPO application fees, checked against the current consolidated fee schedule on 13 September 2026. They are not a GTC quote. Collective and certification marks, international registrations designating the EU, and other procedures have their own fee arrangements. [1]

When comparing quotes, ask for three separate parts:

• Preparation: clearance work, advice on the mark and drafting the goods and services.
• Application: official fees, professional fees and the work included up to registration.
• Exceptions: responses to objections, opposition defence, negotiations, translations or other work charged separately.

Two quotes can display the same headline price while buying different work. Ask what happens if EUIPO raises a question or another business opposes. A low initial figure is easier to assess when the exclusions are beside it.

There is also an official €320 opposition fee. That is paid by the party filing an opposition; it is not an automatic €320 bill to an applicant whose mark is opposed. Defence work can generate separate professional costs. [1]

GTC service pricing and the costs around it

The current GTC customer catalogue lists USD 270 for the first class and USD 90 for each additional class for a new EU trademark filing. These are professional service fees, separate from EUIPO fees. The interactive calculator keeps the currencies separate and shows a 5% processing charge on government fees paid on the client’s behalf. Currency conversion and any applicable taxes are confirmed in the written quotation. [7]

For a two-class application, that means USD 360 in GTC filing service fees, EUR 900 in official filing fees and EUR 45 in processing charges. The written quotation should confirm applicable tax, currency conversion at payment, the work included and any additional services. There is no single combined total until the currencies and tax treatment have been settled.

Before instructing, establish whether the engagement includes a preliminary or comprehensive search, drafting the specification, qualifying representation, responses to examination points and correspondence through registration. Opposition defence, negotiations and appeals should be addressed expressly rather than assumed to be included. The catalogue price alone does not define those contractual boundaries.

For future budgeting, the current catalogue lists an EU renewal service fee of USD 400 for the first class and USD 300 for each additional class. Official renewal fees are separate. Their statutory online schedule for an ordinary individual mark is EUR 850, plus EUR 50 for the second class and EUR 150 for each class beyond two. Late renewal adds a surcharge. These are current reference figures, not a price commitment for a renewal many years from now. [1, Annex I][7]

1. Identify the owner

Use the correct legal person and its details. The brand name, trading name and company name may differ. The application should not simply name whoever pays the invoice or happens to have an account with the office.

If a founder developed the brand before incorporating the business, gather the relevant agreements and explain that history. If more than one business is involved, settle the intended ownership and permitted use before the application becomes another document everyone interprets differently.

2. Choose what you are protecting

A word mark and a logo mark protect different representations of the brand. Review how customers encounter it: on packaging, in a marketplace listing, on an app icon or in an invoice heading.

A practical example: a business that keeps its name but regularly changes its visual identity should discuss protection for the words themselves. A business whose distinctive element is a graphic should make sure that graphic has not disappeared from the filing plan. Neither example replaces a registrability assessment.

A more elaborate font does not automatically solve a problem with descriptive wording. EUIPO examines whether the sign can function as a trademark, including whether it is distinctive or descriptive for the goods and services concerned. [1, Articles 4 and 7]

A worked example: words, logo or both?

Imagine a fictional skincare business called VELORA. Its packaging uses that word inside a circular graphic. This name is only a teaching example; no search or availability opinion has been carried out.

A word-mark application represents the wording in standard characters. A figurative application represents the visual sign, which may combine words, graphics and stylisation. Neither is automatically a complete substitute for the other. If the business mainly wants to protect the name independently of its changing packaging, the word mark deserves attention. If the graphic has commercial importance, discuss that representation too. Filing both involves separate applications and fees. [8]

Registration does not create ownership of a word for every possible use. Distinctiveness and protection are assessed in relation to the relevant goods and services, and earlier rights remain part of the analysis. A decorative logo is not a reliable way to turn descriptive wording into a strong monopoly over those words. [1, Articles 7–9]

3. Describe the business in goods and services

Start with what you sell, then translate that into a precise specification. The list is not a summary of everything the company might one day become.

For example, a business selling skincare under its own brand and operating an online shop needs to distinguish its products from any retail services it wants to protect. Copying the class number from another business does not settle the wording for either activity.

The original list can be narrowed after filing, but it cannot be expanded. An omitted activity may therefore require another application. Take the time to identify commercially realistic plans while the application can still be drafted properly. [1, Article 49]

From a business description to a useful specification

The fictional skincare business sells non-medicated face creams under its brand, runs a retail website and may later introduce dietary supplements. Those activities should be analysed separately. A product description and a retail-service description do different work; the fact that sales happen online does not turn the goods themselves into a digital service.

This example is a drafting exercise, not an approved list of classification terms. Check the final wording against the business and the current classification tools. The legal requirement is clarity and precision. A broad class heading only covers what its literal meaning clearly includes; it does not purchase every item in the class. [1, Article 33]

4. Search for relevant earlier rights

Look beyond exact spelling and beyond EU registrations alone. The review should consider the whole mark, the relevant goods and services, and earlier rights that can operate in the EU territory. A similar result is a question to investigate, not a filing decision by itself.

Classes organise applications. They do not decide whether goods or services are similar: sharing a class does not automatically make them similar, and different classes do not automatically make them dissimilar. [1, Article 33(7)]

Ask for an explanation of what the important findings mean for your proposed application. The useful output is a reasoned next step, with uncertainties identified, rather than a reassuring colour or an unexplained list of results.

5. Bring any earlier filings into the discussion

If you have already applied for the same mark elsewhere, show your adviser the filing date and the original goods-and-services list promptly. A qualifying first application can support a priority claim for an EU application filed within six months, for the same mark and covered goods or services. This is a conditional right with filing and documentation requirements, not an automatic extension of the earlier registration. [1, Articles 34–36]

Earlier national registrations in EU member states may raise a different question: seniority. Do not abandon or stop renewing them simply because an EU application has been filed. Have the eligibility and consequences of any seniority claim assessed first. [1, Articles 39–40]

Filing and formalities

The application identifies the owner, the mark and the goods and services. Payment must be handled within the applicable filing rules; the application fee must be paid within one month to preserve the filing date under Article 32. An internal payment delay should not become a trademark deadline problem. [1]

The first language can be any official EU language. You must also choose a different second language from EUIPO’s five languages: English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. The rules governing correspondence and proceedings depend on the situation, so this is a procedural choice to discuss with your representative. [1, Article 146][3]

Examination

EUIPO reviews the application against the requirements for registration. Questions may concern the application details, the goods and services, or the sign itself. If an objection arrives, read its actual reason and deadline before deciding what to change.

Passing this stage does not establish that every earlier trademark owner agrees with your application. Examination and opposition address different issues. [1, Articles 42–47]

Publication and opposition

Following publication, eligible earlier-right holders have a three-month opposition period. If an opposition is filed, the next decision depends on the rights relied on and the application’s scope. It may involve defending, narrowing the specification, exploring settlement or reconsidering the brand. [1, Articles 46–47]

An opposition is not an automatic loss. Equally, a clean examination is not a reason to ignore it. Gather the filing documents and commercial background promptly so the response can be assessed properly.

If the application runs into a problem

First distinguish who is raising the issue. An examiner may question distinctiveness, descriptiveness or the application’s formal requirements. An opponent relies on an earlier right. These problems can require different evidence and different commercial decisions. EUIPO does not refuse applications on relative grounds on its own initiative; earlier-right objections normally need the relevant party to raise them through the applicable proceedings. [1, Articles 7–8 and 42–47][3]

For an opposition, read the right relied on, the goods and services challenged, the procedural stage and the deadline in the actual notice. Possible responses include disputing the claim, narrowing the application, negotiating an agreement or withdrawing. The right choice depends on the evidence and what the business can commercially accept.

An older registered mark may also raise a proof-of-use question. Where the statutory conditions are met, the applicant can request evidence that the earlier mark was genuinely used during the relevant five-year period, or that proper reasons for non-use exist. It is not enough to say that the opponent’s website looks inactive. Whether a request is available and how it is made must be checked against the relevant dates and procedure. [1, Article 47(2)–(3)]

Could conversion preserve protection elsewhere?

Where an EUTM application is refused or withdrawn, or a registration ceases to have effect, conversion may allow national applications to retain the EU filing date or priority date. It is excluded in territories where the grounds in the relevant decision apply, and special limits apply after revocation for non-use. National requirements and costs remain. [1, Articles 139–141]

Illustration: if a decision identifies a conflict confined to an earlier national right in one member state, conversion into other eligible member states may be considered. If the obstacle applies across the Union, conversion will not make it disappear. The time limit is short and its starting event varies; assess it as soon as the problem arises, rather than after assuming the file has closed.

The EUIPO conversion request fee is EUR 200. That does not pay for the resulting national applications or professional work. Conversion is useful to understand before filing, but a search and a sound specification remain the better starting point. [1, Annex I and Articles 139–141]

Plan in stages rather than treating a single headline estimate as a promise. Examination, publication and the opposition period are separate steps; objections or disputes can extend the process.

The three-month opposition period begins with publication, not with submission of the application. Fast Track can help an eligible application reach publication sooner; it does not remove examination or shorten that statutory opposition window. Conditions include using accepted goods-and-services terms and arranging prompt payment. Choose suitable wording first: faster processing is not a good reason to describe the wrong business. [1, Article 46][4]

Ask for the current estimate for the application as prepared, what assumptions it uses, and what would change it. If a launch or distributor agreement depends on registration, make that dependency explicit before filing. Do not describe a pending application to a commercial partner as though registration has already been granted.

An overseas business can own an EU trademark. Representation is a separate question. Broadly, applicants without a domicile, principal place of business, or real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Economic Area (EEA) need qualifying representation in EUIPO proceedings other than filing the application itself. There are specific provisions for employee representation. [1, Articles 119–120]

Nationality alone does not answer this question. Give the adviser the applicant’s actual entity and establishment details. Also confirm who will receive office communications and who will act if a response is needed.

If the application completes the process, registration is the start of portfolio management. Keep the certificate and the final specification together, and record responsibility for renewal and official correspondence.

An EUTM lasts ten years from the filing date and can be renewed for further ten-year periods. The genuine-use clock has a different starting point: five years following registration. A failure to put the mark to genuine use in the EU for the registered goods or services within that period, or an uninterrupted five-year suspension of use, can expose the rights to non-use consequences unless there are proper reasons. The use assessment is fact-specific. Renewal alone does not answer it. [1, Articles 18, 52–53 and 58]

The ordinary renewal window is the six months before expiry. A further six-month period after expiry is available with a late surcharge. Do not rely solely on a reminder from the office: failure to receive one does not postpone expiry. [1, Article 53]

Keep dated examples of commercial use with the portfolio: product packaging, invoices, advertising and sales records. These are starting points for an evidence file, not a promise that any single document will prove genuine use.

Genuine use: keep evidence that explains the commercial activity

An evidence file should help establish which mark was used, for which products or services, where, when and to what extent. Keep related records together: a dated product page is more useful when it can be connected to sales, customers, advertising or distribution evidence. A screenshot on its own may leave several of those questions unanswered. This is practical record-keeping advice; whether evidence is sufficient depends on the case.

The law recognises use in a form that differs from the registration where the changes do not alter its distinctive character. It also recognises use with the owner’s consent. Neither rule means that every redesign or informal licensing arrangement is safe. Review changes to the name, logo and users of the mark as the business develops. [1, Article 18]

Ownership and licensing

A change of company name and a transfer to a different legal entity are different events. Keep the registered owner’s details accurate and check whether the contracts, invoices and register tell the same story. An EUTM can be transferred for some or all of its goods and services; assignments generally require writing and the parties’ signatures, subject to the statutory exceptions. [1, Article 20]

Licences can specify the goods and services, territory and whether the arrangement is exclusive. They should also deal with the permitted form of the mark, duration and quality requirements. A distributor’s permission to sell products should not be treated as permission to own the registration. Recording and enforcing arrangements need case-specific advice. [1, Articles 8(3), 25–27]

Monitoring and responding after registration

Registration does not operate a monitoring service for the owner. Put responsibility for incoming notices, renewal records and newly discovered similar marks with a named person. A watch alert is a starting point for assessment: compare the signs, goods, dates and territories before deciding whether to oppose or pursue another route.

Keep EUIPO proceedings and infringement litigation distinct. Opposition concerns a pending application; revocation or invalidity can concern a registered right. Infringement claims are dealt with through the competent courts and applicable procedures, not by assuming EUIPO will order a trader to stop selling goods. [1, Articles 46, 58–60 and 123–124]

These checks will not remove every filing risk. They make it easier to see what you are applying for, what you are paying for and which decisions remain open.

General information, not legal advice for a particular matter. See the sources below for the legal basis.

[1] EU Trade Mark Regulation, consolidated 1 December 2025. Articles 1, 4–9, 18, 20, 25–27, 31–36, 39–40, 42–53, 58–60, 119–120, 123–124, 139–141 and 146; Annex I. Current consolidated version and relevant provisions checked 13 September 2026.

[2] UK IPO: EU trade mark protection and comparable UK trade marks. Territorial separation and comparable-right arrangements checked 13 September 2026.

[3] EUIPO: Application and registration procedure. Application language choices, cross-checked with Article 146, 13 September 2026.

[4] EUIPO: Fast Track conditions. Faster examination and publication, accepted terms and payment conditions; checked 13 September 2026.

[5] WIPO: Madrid application process. Office-of-origin, WIPO and designated-office roles checked 13 September 2026.

[6] European Commission: Trade mark protection in the EU. National, Benelux and EU systems.

[7] GTC EU trademark registration service. Reference pricing checked 13 September 2026. Obtain a written quotation confirming scope, applicable taxes and payment currency.

[8] EUIPO: Types of trade marks. Official indexed description cross-checked with the Irish IPO explanation.