The 2025 Kay Uwe Jonas Memorial Lecture was delivered by Lydia Gobena, of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, during the MARQUES Team Meetings in Barcelona in March.

The topic of Lydia’s lecture was “The Case for Creativity”. In the talk, she described “how participating in creative endeavours outside of your practice can benefit you professionally and personally”.

Lydia (a member of the MARQUES Famous and Well-Known Marks Team) drew on her own experience of jewellery making, from her first weekend class at a prestigious fashion school in 2001 and making jewellery for friends and family to launching a small business and exhibiting in galleries and exhibitions.

She also illustrated her talk by wearing items of jewellery she had made, including rings and a necklace.

“It has been more than two decades since I first stepped in to the jewellery marking studio and it has been one of the most educational and satisfying adventures I have undertaken. As I explored my creativity, I learned several valuable lessons,” she said.

These lessons include: a greater appreciation for clients’ needs, the need for flexibility and taking a business perspective; developing foresight, problem-solving and imagination; managing anxiety; coping with disappointment; finding a safe space to make mistakes; being authentic and being comfortable with who you are; and seizing the moment.

“Some of the most interesting and beautiful things that you can create will be a product of your mistakes,” said Lydia. “Sometimes, I may even rejoice in those mistakes when they turn out differently than what I had imagined. Thus, instead of dwelling on them or amplifying them, I try to figure out how to avoid them next time - or, better yet, glean something positive from an otherwise negative situation.”

Lydia dedicated the speech to the memory of Kay Uwe Jonas, Cory Joshua Germaine Alleyne and her mother Abebetch Gobena. She concluded: “Live your life fully, imaginatively and without regret and, in the process, you might learn some things and end up finding joy.”

The full text of Lydia’s speech is available to read on the MARQUES website here.

WIPO is hosting a conference to mark the 25^th anniversary of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).It will take place in Geneva, Switzerland on 23 April this year with online attendance also possible.

According to WIPO: “The conference will include a retrospective on the UDRP, taking stock of jurisprudential trends and looking ahead to the planned review of the UDRP by ICANN. Sessions will also look at ADR systems for blockchain domains, the upcoming introduction of new gTLDs, and DNS industry and enforcement forecasts including the potential impacts of AI.”

The conference will include opening remarks by WIPO Director General Daren Tang and Assistant Director General, IP and Innovation Ecosystems Sector, Marco Alemán followed by sessions on: the UDRP in numbers; UDRP retrospective (a global blueprint); WIPO’s ccTLD program; UDRP review expert group report; WIPO Overview 3.1; WIPO’s e-filing system and case platform; ICANN’s new gTLD program; applying the UDRP model to Web3/Blockchain domains/Alt Roots; and the future of DNS enforcement: AI tools/state of play.

There will also be time set aside for open discussion.

The conference is open to the public including brand owners, trade mark practitioners, counsel, registrars, ccTLD administrators, academics and other domain name and Internet stakeholders. 

It is being held in a hybrid format. On-site attendance includes lunch and a cocktail reception.

For more information on the program and speakers, visit WIPO’s website here.

To register to attend online, click here.

To join the waiting list for on-site attendance, email arbiter.meetings@wipo.int.

EUIPO has published details of its approach to artificial intelligence, including information on its current use of AI tools.

The information is available on the EUIPO website here. There is also a video by EUIPO available on YouTube.

The information on the website sets out EUIPO's responsible approach to AI, which is bult on five pillars: AI as a strategic enabler; adopting AI in a structured way; applying AI in a practical way; cooperating and sharing knowledge on AI; and introducing AI with a human-centric approach.

EUIPO says it uses AI "to empower staff, helping them achieve greater productivity, accuracy, and efficiency" and builds AI systems that are "transparent, unbiased, and secure, with strong safeguards to protect privacy and data".

It adds: "Our commitment to AI governance focuses on ensuring that all AI solutions are developed with ethics, user trust, and positive impact at their core. By harnessing AI's potential, we aim to drive meaningful change across the EU, enhancing both our services and the experiences of those we serve."

AI tools are currently used at various stages of the trade mark lifecycle (see chart below), including in tools such as TMview, DesignView, eSearch plus and eTranslation for eSearch Case Law.

Illustration from EUIPO website used with permission

A section on Brazil has been added to the chart on self-regulatory organisations (SROs) for advertising and unfair competition matters.

The chart is compiled by the MARQUES Unfair Competition Team and can be downloaded on the Team’s page on the MARQUES website (MARQUES log-in required).

Team Co-Vice-Chair Felipe Dannemann Lundgren of Dannemann Siemsen in Rio de Janeiro has completed the questionnaire for Brazil. The project is led by Philippe Probst of Fuhrer Marbach & Partners in Switzerland.

The chart now covers Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA.

The purpose of the questionnaire is to provide corporate lawyers, attorneys and others with a practical and user-friendly overview of SROs for advertising and unfair competition matters operating in various jurisdictions with general powers over the full spectrum (or a broad range) of industries.

Some jurisdictions may have separate SROs and/or separate rules and procedures with respect to different types of matters.

The questionnaire is intended to cover advertising and unfair competition matters, not consumer protection matters (redress for defective products and services, price regulations, consumer credit law, etc).

Industry-specific SROs are also not covered by the questionnaire (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, medical and health, or food industry SROs) except to the extent that these are of significant importance and handle advertising and/or unfair competition matters.

The five questions for each jurisdiction encompass: existence and identity of self-regulatory organisations; matters handled; rules, eligible parties and fees; procedure; and penalties and enforceability.

Further jurisdictions will be added soon. If you have any questions, please contact a member of the Unfair Competition Team.

The Working Group on the Legal Development of the Madrid System is conducting a survey of users. The survey is aimed at both trade mark owners and representatives, and WIPO welcomes responses from both groups.

The survey focuses on three issues:

• Bad faith: Understanding the prevalence of bad faith filings within the Madrid System
• Central attack: Assessing the use of central attack in relation to international trade mark registrations.
• Basic mark ceasing of effect: Gathering data on the grounds for cancellation of international trade mark registrations due to the ceasing of effect of the basic mark.

Feedback from users will inform discussions at the next session of the Working Group in September 2025.

Responses are anonymous and the survey takes about 10 to 15 minutes.

The survey is available on WIPO’s website here. The deadline is 30 April 2025.

WIPO is also conducting a survey of IP offices of Madrid System members.

The MARQUES International Trade Mark Law and Practice Team encourages all users to complete the survey. MARQUES takes part in the Working Group discussions and is preparing a formal submission for the meeting in September.

The Team is also leading a workshop at the MARQUES Annual Conference in The Hague in September, which will focus on Canadian and US developments.

Registration is now open for the next MARQUES webinar, which takes place on Wednesday 4 June at 14.00-15.00 Europe time.

The webinar is hosted by the MARQUES Cyberspace Team and is titled: “Evolving Challenges and Infringements on Social Media”.

It will address the latest social media developments, including the emergence of new players and business models, and their impact on IP rights.

The webinar will feature industry experts who will share their experiences on tackling IP challenges on social media – including positive outcomes and common problems. The speakers are:

• Luca Barbero, Barbero & Associates Ltd, UK
• Linnea Harnesk, Autoliv AB, Sweden
• Kate Coffey, Zurich Insurance Company Ltd Switzerland
• Daniel Greenberg, Lexsynergy Limited, UK

The speakers will share tips and tools for monitoring IP infringements, securing takedowns and preventing IP abuse – and provide invaluable insights into the not-so-social aspects of social media.

This webinar is recommended for all in-house counsel and external advisers who deal with IP enforcement online. The fee is €75 (MARQUES members) or €125 (non-members).

To find out more and secure your place, visit the dedicated page on the MARQUES website.

For the first time in Turkey, the IP law enacted in 2017 introduced an administrative revocation procedure before the Turkish Patent and Trade Mark Office. However, to ensure a smooth transition, its implementation was delayed until 10 January 2024.

Previously, actions for revocation of trade marks based on non-use were filed as a court action before the specialized IP courts.

As of 10 January 10 2024, the Office has become responsible for handling revocation requests. However, at that date, the regulation on the implementation of the administrative revocation of trade marks was not published.

Due to uncertainties concerning the procedure, the Office started to accept revocation requests as “preliminary applications” but could not start examining them on the merits due to the lack of implementing regulation.

At long last, on 15 March 2025, the Office published a regulation amending the regulation on the implementation of the administrative revocation of trade marks. Accordingly, the Office will start examining the revocation requests on the merits. Mutlu Yıldırım Köse and İrem Girenes Yücesoy answer the key questions.

Changes in the Regulation

In general, the procedure outlined in the Regulation aligns with the IP Code, but there are some changes introduced by the Regulation.

One of the changes in the Regulation is the requirement to file a revocation request for each trade mark.

Previously, it was possible to file a court action requesting the revocation of multiple trade marks belonging to the same person or legal entity. However, with the new Regulation, a separate revocation request must be filed for each trade mark.

Fees

Another significant change is the introduction of an escrow fee which is determined as TL23,458.33 + VAT for 2025 (around €700). This fee must be paid when filing a revocation request, in addition to the official application fee which was previously determined at the same amount.

The Regulation stipulates that the revocation fee consists of two components – the application fee and the escrow fee, which is held in an escrow account – both of which are collected in a single payment.

If a revocation request is entirely rejected, the escrow fee will be refunded to the trade mark owner upon request. If the request is fully accepted, the escrow fee will be returned to the revocation request owner.

This provision is clearly designed to protect trade mark owners from unfair applications as it allows them to be compensated to a certain extent for their efforts in proving the genuine use of their trade marks by receiving the escrow fee.

However, the Regulation also introduces a compelling provision stipulating that in cases where the revocation requests are accepted partially, no payment will be made to the parties, and the fee held in the escrow account will be recorded as income for the Office.

Thus, in order to avoid forfeiting the escrow fee, it has become crucial to file a revocation request directed at the goods and services for which the trade marks have not been genuinely used, and for the owners to prove the genuine use of their trade marks for all goods and services subject to the revocation request.

The provision of the Regulation establishing the escrow fee will not be applied retroactively to revocation requests submitted before its enactment.

Form and procedure

A revocation request must be submitted along with the required fee and a form containing key details, including:

• The registration number and the goods/services subject to the revocation request
• The ID and contact details of the request owner and, if applicable, their trade mark agent
• The grounds for revocation, along with any supporting information or documents

Upon submission, the Office grants the requester a one-month period to remedy any deficiencies, such as missing information, failure to pay the required fee or lack of supporting documents. If these deficiencies are not rectified within the given timeframe, the Office will dismiss the revocation request.

If the request is properly filed, the Office will invite the trade mark owner to submit evidence proving genuine use of the trade mark for the registered goods and services or to provide a legitimate justification for non-use. The trade mark owner has one month to submit this evidence, with the possibility of an additional month upon request. The Office may also request further documents or explanations if deemed necessary.

Similar goods or services

A new provision has been introduced in the Regulation, stating that “a revocation decision cannot be issued for similar goods or services.”

We believe this provision aims to ensure that a trade mark is not revoked for goods or services where genuine use has been demonstrated. However, this should not be interpreted as extending protection to similar goods or services.

Next steps

With the Regulation, the procedure on the implementation of the administrative revocation of trade marks has become clear.

It is now expected that the Office will notify the owners of preliminary applications to complete missing information and documents and proceed with examination of the revocation requests.  

By Mutlu Yıldırım Köse and İrem Girenes Yücesoy of Gün+Partners in Turkey. Mutlu Yıldırım Köse is a member of the MARQUES Cyberspace Team