The EUIPO Guidelines 2026 entered into force on 1 July 2026, adopted by the Executive Director on 30 June through Decision No EX-26-09. For EU trade mark owners, the most relevant changes affect oppositions, proof of use and the examination of marks that use or evoke geographical indications (GIs). This article summarises the seven changes that matter most for brand owners filing or defending marks before the EUIPO.
Key takeaways
- An earlier right relied on in an opposition must remain valid until the decision, as the Court of Justice confirmed in February 2026.
- Joint suspensions of oppositions can now be extended automatically for 18 months, and further time extensions no longer need supporting evidence.
- The EUIPO can object ex officio to marks that exploit or weaken a GI’s reputation, even for goods that are not comparable.
- Proof of use for broad categories of goods gets more detailed guidance on subcategories.
What changed in the EUIPO Guidelines 2026?
The Guidelines are the EUIPO’s (European Union Intellectual Property Office) manual of practice for EU trade marks and designs. According to the EUIPO’s summary of main changes (30 June 2026), introduces the following for trade marks:
| # | Change | Part | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The earlier right must remain valid until the opposition decision (C-337/22 P, Ape tees, 5 February 2026) | C, Opposition | An opposition falls if the earlier mark lapses or is cancelled before the decision |
| 2 | Oppositions on rights not eligible under Article 8(4) EUTMR are rejected as inadmissible | C | Faster end to weak oppositions |
| 3 | Second and later time extensions need no supporting evidence, but must still be reasoned and exceptional | A and C | Less paperwork, same threshold |
| 4 | After a first six-month joint suspension, a joint extension is granted automatically for 18 months, within the two-year maximum | C | More time to negotiate coexistence |
| 5 | Upper and lower case no longer matter between word marks; unstylised single letters have weak distinctiveness; guidance on “due cause” (T-425/24, pasta ZARA) | C | Changes how similarity and reputation cases are argued |
| 6 | More guidance on subcategories in proof of use; new rules on abusive revocation requests and conversion after revocation | C, D and E | Use evidence must match specific subcategories |
| 7 | Extended ex officio examination of GIs under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR, following T-239/23, NERO CHAMPAGNE | B, Examination | More objections to marks that use or evoke GIs |
Oppositions: what changes for opponents and applicants?
Change 1 is not new practice; the Guidelines now incorporate the Court of Justice’s confirmation that the earlier right must exist at the filing date of the contested mark and remain valid until the final decision. For opponents, renewal and use of the earlier mark remain a live risk throughout: if it lapses or is revoked, the opposition fails.
Changes 3 and 4 make procedure more flexible. Parties negotiating coexistence can secure a long suspension and opt out at any time. Change 2 cuts proceedings short where the opponent relies on a right that Article 8(4) cannot support.
Proof of use: why the subcategory analysis matters
In an opposition, the applicant can ask the opponent to prove genuine use of an earlier mark that has been registered for at least five years (Article 47(2) EUTMR); without that proof, the opposition is rejected. The 2026 Guidelines add more explanations and case-law examples on how the EUIPO defines subcategories when a mark is registered for a broad term. In practice, evidence of use for one product line protects only the subcategory it falls in, not the whole class heading.
Two cancellation points also change: a revocation request can be declared inadmissible for abuse of process in exceptional cases, following the Grand Board’s Sandra Pabst decision, and a request for an earlier revocation date no longer needs a “legitimate interest”.
Geographical indications: wider ex officio objections
After the General Court’s NERO CHAMPAGNE judgment of 25 June 2025, the EUIPO’s ex officio examination under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR is no longer limited to identical or comparable goods. It can object where a mark exploits, weakens, dilutes or harms the reputation of a GI. Restricting the specification to goods that comply with the GI is only a rebuttable presumption, and it will not cure an objection where the GI is evoked, or used for processed goods containing the GI product.
What this means for your business
- Before opposing, check the earlier mark’s renewal date and use position, and keep both under control until the decision.
- When negotiating, use the automatic 18-month suspension extension instead of rushing an agreement.
- Rebuild use evidence by subcategory for marks registered for broad terms.
- Screen new names against EU agricultural, wine, spirit and craft GIs, not only against trade mark registers.
- Review watch criteria: case differences and single letters are now assessed differently.
Our EU trademark filing and watch services already apply the 2026 practice, and our trademark opposition and enforcement team can review pending cases against it.
Where companies get this wrong
- Letting the earlier mark lapse during an opposition. The opposition falls with it.
- Filing generic use evidence. Catalogues covering “clothing” will not prove use for every subcategory.
- Assuming a GI clash only matters for identical goods. Evocation now reaches further.
Frequently asked questions
When did the EUIPO Guidelines 2026 enter into force?
On 1 July 2026. The Executive Director adopted them on 30 June 2026 through Decision No EX-26-09, which repeals the previous trade mark Guidelines of 2024 and design Guidelines of 2025. They apply to the EUIPO’s examination of EU trade marks and registered EU designs from that date.
Are the EUIPO Guidelines legally binding?
No. The EUIPO describes them as self-imposed rules of conduct adopted by an administrative decision, not legal acts. They reflect how examiners and opposition divisions apply the Regulation and case law, so they are the best guide to how a case will be handled, but the EU courts can depart from them.
Does an opposition fail if the earlier mark expires during the proceedings?
Yes. The 2026 Guidelines incorporate the Court of Justice’s judgment of 5 February 2026 in C-337/22 P: the earlier right must exist at the filing date of the contested mark and remain valid until the final decision. If it lapses, is surrendered or is cancelled before then, the opposition cannot succeed.
Can IP Global Guard handle EUIPO oppositions under the new Guidelines?
Yes. We prepare and coordinate oppositions, defences and proof of use before the EUIPO, directly where our professionals are entitled and through qualified representatives otherwise, and align them with your national filings in Latin America and Africa from a single point of contact.
How IP Global Guard keeps your EU portfolio aligned with the 2026 practice
Practice changes matter most when they meet a live deadline. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, manages EU trade marks within one strategy for more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa.
Send us your pending EUIPO oppositions and the marks you plan to file this year. We will check them against the 2026 Guidelines and tell you where to act. Request a review from our trademark team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position on its publication date.
