{"id":2195,"date":"2019-01-10T17:58:11","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T16:58:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/ano-nuevo-ley-de-marcas-nueva-modificacion-de-la-ley-17-2001\/"},"modified":"2026-02-04T06:32:16","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T05:32:16","slug":"new-year-new-trademark-law-new-amendment-to-law-17-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/blog\/ano-nuevo-ley-de-marcas-nueva-modificacion-de-la-ley-17-2001\/","title":{"rendered":"New year, new trademark law: amendment to Law 17\/2001."},"content":{"rendered":"

On December 27, 2018, the following was published in the Official State Gazette (BOE): Royal Decree-Law 23\/2018<\/a><\/strong>, of December 21, transposing directives on trademarks, rail transport, and package travel and linked travel arrangements.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

This Royal Decree-Law amends, among other regulations, the Law 17\/2001, on Trademarks<\/a><\/strong>, transposing the Directive 2015\/2436<\/a><\/strong>, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

<\/p>\r\n\r\n

The new regulation, which will mostly come into force on January 14<\/strong>, brings relatively significant changes and, to a certain extent, brings the functioning of our national trademark system closer to that of European trademarks, governed by the Regulation 2017\/1001<\/a><\/strong> (which we discussed, at the time, in this post<\/a><\/strong>).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

In today's article, we explain some of the main changes brought about by the new regulation:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

1) The requirement for graphic representation is eliminated.<\/strong> of the trademark, imposed until now by Article 4 of our law. As of January 14, trademarks may be registered with the OEPM that are not necessarily represented graphically, but are represented in such a way that \u201cit allows the competent authorities and the general public to determine the clear and precise object of the protection granted to its owner.\u201d.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Does this open the door to less conventional or stranger brands than those that have been registered so far (for example, olfactory brands<\/strong>)? The answer, disappointing as it may be, is no (for now).<\/strong>. As we explained in this post<\/a><\/strong>, in which we talk about the possibility of Hasbro trademarking the smell of Play-Doh<\/strong>, the well-known judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of December 12, 2002, in the famous case \u201cSieckmann<\/strong>\u201d requires that the representation of the mark be \u201cprecise, complete in itself, easily accessible, intelligible, durable, and objective.\u201d These requirements are not met if a sample of the scent is provided in a container, a formula of the chemical substance, or a description of the scent.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The new regulation may, however, facilitate the registration process for sound marks<\/strong>, as the applicant will no longer be required to provide a musical score or other graphic representation of the sound they wish to register, but may instead provide a simple audio in a digital file<\/strong>. We have already discussed European sound marks filed with the EUIPO in this other post<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

2) The well-known trademark is eliminated, and only the renamed one remains.<\/strong>. Under the unamended regulations, a well-known trademark was one known to the sector of the public to which the goods and services are directed. A renowned trademark, on the other hand, is one known to the general public.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Two issues stand out in the removal of the well-known trademark: one, that the renamed brand is not defined now<\/strong> (this definition has been removed from Article 8), leaving it as an indeterminate legal concept; and secondly, that it does not appear that the concept of a renowned brand will now allow for gradations<\/strong> (i.e., greater or lesser renown), as the second part of Article 8.2, which established (in wonderful wording) that protection would extend \u201cto products, services, or activities of a nature that is all the more different the greater the degree of recognition of the trademark,\u201d has also been eliminated.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

3) In the opposition proceedings before the SPTO<\/strong>, the applicant may request the owner of the opposing trademark to test the effective use<\/strong> of your brand, if it is registered more than 5 years<\/strong>. This makes the opposition procedure before the OEPM similar to the procedures before the EUIPO<\/a><\/strong>. However, this amendment will not come into force until the new procedural changes have been developed in regulations, which has not yet happened.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

4) Some absolute prohibitions on registration are amended<\/strong>. The new wording prohibits trademarks that conflict with designations of origin and geographical indications (Article 5.1 h)); traditional wine terms (Article 5.1 i)); traditional specialties guaranteed (Article 5.1 j)); or plant varieties (Article 5.1 k)).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Likewise, the new regulation brings with it the granting the OEPM the power to hear and decide on proceedings for revocation due to non-use and invalidity of registered trademarks<\/strong>, although this amendment will not enter into force until January 14, 2023<\/strong>. This power will be (almost) exclusive to the OEPM, except in cases of counterclaims in trademark infringement proceedings, a power that, unsurprisingly, remains with the competent courts and tribunals.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

At Bamboo, we are lawyers specializing in trademarks, so if you have any questions about the above, please feel free to contact us. We will be happy to help you.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

El pasado 27 de diciembre de 2018 se public\u00f3 en el BOE el Real Decreto-ley 23\/2018, de 21 de diciembre, de transposici\u00f3n de directivas en materia de marcas, transporte ferroviario y viajes combinados y servicios de viaje vinculados. Este Real Decreto-ley modifica, entre otras normas, la Ley 17\/2001, de Marcas, en transposici\u00f3n de la Directiva […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2196,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-entorno-digital"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2195"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2195\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3131,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2195\/revisions\/3131"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2196"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bamboo.legal\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}