EUIPO trade mark filings 2023-2024: Key insights and trends

Each month, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) publishes detailed statistics on trade mark filings, providing insights into trade mark activity across the European Union. We have provided previous reports on similar statistics in the UK (see our earlier article on the most recent trends in the United Kingdom here). Below are the main trends observed from the EUIPO’s data in 2023 and 2024, offering guidance for brand owners navigating the EU landscape.

In summary, much like in the UK, negotiation to resolve disputes is the most desired option for the parties. Around 60 percent of oppositions are resolved without an opposition decision being issued which suggests that settlements are often reached and that brand owners are engaging in practical solutions to disputes to support their commercial strategy. As such and due to an increasingly clogged EU trade mark register, carving out the scope for trade mark registration and use becomes a matter of business strategy. To protect their commercial interests, brand owners need to engage advisors who can not only file their trade marks (and assist with searches and availability checks) but who also have negotiation and litigation skills to resolve oppositions and disputes. 

We have also noted an increase in use of the Madrid Protocol filing system as a solution to obtain protection in the EU generally but also, especially, by US applicants in particular. Although the use of the system under certain circumstances negates the need for a representative at the time of filing, it is increasingly important for foreign brand owners to employ skilled local IP counsel to assist with complex office actions and to navigate oppositions, as doing so could ensure a proper local follow-through of a filing and protection strategy. Without such intervention, the scope of many Madrid applications could be unnecessarily reduced, or those applications could be refused or successfully opposed. 

1. EUTM Filings Overview

From January to November 2024, 165,884 trade mark applications were filed, of which 140,013 were direct applications and 25871 were designated through the Madrid system. In 2023, 175,709 applications were filed (of which 29,462 were through the Madrid system) bringing the total number of filings since 1996 to over 2.9 million. The evolution over the past decade is summarised in the graphic below. This shows that after 2021’s record high, numbers of applications filed have reduced slightly (this is similar to the UK trend). It is also the case that, as a proportion of the total, the number of Madrid Protocol designations of the EU has increased over the last few years.



In terms of countries, China, Germany, and the United States were the largest contributors to filings in 2023, with 23,759, 22,180, and 17,221 applications, respectively. This reflects the continuing importance of the EU as a jurisdiction for international trade mark protection.

Turning to US applicants, the number of direct filings remains almost steady, however, there has been growth in the number of US applicants using the Madrid system. This is interesting from a strategy point of view; while Madrid system filers from the US and their US advisors can file the application themselves, they will often need skilled counsel to overcome office actions and oppositions. The evolution of EUIPO filings by US applicants over the past decade is summarised in the graphic below. 



2. Surveillance Letters Under Article 43(7) EUTMR

An important aspect of EU trade mark monitoring is the issuance of surveillance letters under Article 43(7) EUTMR. These letters notify brand owners of new filings that may conflict with their earlier marks which, in turn, may prompt them to oppose third party trade mark applications.

From our conversations with the EUIPO, we have established that between January 2023 and October 2024, the EUIPO sent out 550,652 surveillance letters, with 304,097 letters sent in 2023 and 246,555 so far in 2024. The monthly breakdown of these letters reveals some fluctuations, but consistent volumes have been issued throughout the period, ensuring that brand owners are kept informed of potential conflicts.



In our opinion, even though the EUIPO is thorough in issuing surveillance letters, relying solely on EUIPO-issued surveillance letters is not sufficient. The system, which automatically generates those letters, may not identify all potential conflicts and is not customised to the specific needs of individual businesses. A report could include results that are not relevant, but equally the report may miss marks that are a credible threat.  To mitigate these risks, applicants would be prudent to make use of a thorough watching service with the necessary level of attorney support, which will also save time. 

In more general terms, it is important for foreign businesses to focus on the individual EU jurisdictions that matter most to a business - without assuming that the EU is a single consumer market. Careful attention needs to be paid to the scope of protection sought, and whether or not filing applications through national systems is an alternative or additional strategy. Considering national registration systems in the context of potential opposition threats, is also relevant and this aspect ties into utilising a watching service that broadly covers the EU registers and company names. It is also important to pay attention to neighbouring countries that are not covered by an EU trade mark but which are geographically surrounded by EU countries, such as Andorra, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. 

4. Opposition Trends: negotiated settlement of disputes. 

While the number of oppositions against EUTM applications remained high in 2023, with 18,421 oppositions filed, there was a slight decrease from the peak of 20,125 oppositions in 2021. The statistics from the EUIPO’s November 2024 report are summarised below.

Of the 18,421 oppositions received in 2023, 7,880 oppositions went to a decision whereas 11,761 oppositions (64%) were concluded without proceeding to a judgment. This suggests resolving disputes amicably is an important and routine step in the process of obtaining protection in the EU. Settlement outcomes can be quicker, less costly, and less adversarial, benefiting both parties. Successful negotiation of settlement agreements can often lead to favorable trading conditions and help to minimise the risk of conflict in the marketplace. As such, for brand owners, dispute resolution can be a pragmatic solution for the parties.

An advantage of the EU opposition system is that it encourages negotiation of disputes by offering a cost-effective framework where oppositions can be filed relatively inexpensively, following a cooling-off period specifically designed to facilitate the amicable resolution of disputes. 

5. Conclusion 

Given the trends observed in the latest EUIPO data, brand owners should take the following steps:

• Utilise watching services: the surveillance letters of the EUIPO serve as a warning system for potential trade mark conflicts at the point of publication.  However, these are not completely comprehensive and setting up a robust watching strategy can help brand owners identify these risks much earlier.
• Opposition management: Oppositions are an important way for brand owners to settle disputes, avoid confusion in the marketplace and protect brand identity. As such, it is important to engage advisors who are experienced in advising on and negotiating settlements to disputes. Being proactive in opposition filings and managing negotiations carefully and from a strategic perspective can safeguard  exclusivity of brands in the market but also save cost and yield quicker results. 
• Madrid applications: Whilst becoming increasingly popular, brand owners who use the Madrid system need a strategy to defend Madrid applications against complex office actions and oppositions. The negotiation and dispute resolution skills of local trade mark attorneys appointed as representatives are important especially in the context that most oppositions are resolved through negotiation.