New EUIPO Guidelines: a focus on GI not AI

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has published the 2026 edition of its Guidelines for Examination, which came into force on 1 July 2026.

Although the Guidelines are not legally binding, they are the principal statement of how the Office intends to examine trade mark applications and conduct proceedings. They are therefore an invaluable indicator of where EUIPO practice is heading.

This year’s update is not one of sweeping reform. Much of it reflects recent case law, legislative changes and refinements to established practice. Nevertheless, there are several developments that deserve particular attention, especially for those responsible for filing and managing EU trade mark portfolios.

Greater precision in specifications

The revisions continue the EUIPO’s long-standing emphasis on clarity and precision in specifications of goods and services.

The Guidelines incorporate the latest Nice Classification updates and unsurprisingly provide additional guidance on terminology relating to emerging technologies, including AI and crypto-assets.

The message is a practical one: applicants should avoid relying on vague or fashionable terminology where more accurate descriptions of the relevant goods or services are available.

This is consistent with the Office’s broader approach over recent years. As new technologies emerge, the emphasis remains on identifying what the goods or services actually are and what they do, rather than simply attaching the latest technological label.

On AI, the Guidelines also address the use of AI tools in EUIPO proceedings. The Office confirms that AI may be a useful assistive tool in preparing submissions, but makes clear that parties remain fully responsible for the accuracy, legality and reliability of any documents or evidence filed, regardless of whether AI has been used in their preparation.

The biggest story is geographical indications

Given the increasing prominence of artificial intelligence in trade mark practice, some may have expected AI to dominate this year’s revisions. In fact, the most significant changes concern geographical indications (GIs).

The EUIPO has substantially revised its guidance following recent legislative reforms and the General Court’s decisions in NERO CHAMPAGNE and PriSecco/Prosecco. The result is a more expansive approach to examining trade marks that may conflict with protected geographical indications.

Perhaps the most important practical development is the confirmation that the Office’s examination under Article 7(1)(j) EUTMR is no longer confined to identical or comparable goods and services. Depending on the applicable legislation and the nature of the sign, examination may now extend more broadly where the reputation or protection afforded to a geographical indication is engaged. The Guidelines also provide considerably more detailed analysis of the distinction between ‘use’ and ‘evocation’ of a geographical indication, together with revised examples illustrating when objections may, and may not, be overcome by restricting the specification.

For applicants in sectors involving wines, spirits, food products and other protected geographical indications, these changes reinforce the importance of carrying out thorough clearance searches before filing and considering GI issues at an early stage.

The GI revisions also address a development of wider significance, implementing the new EU framework for GIs for craft and industrial products. For the first time, regionally distinctive non-food products (including ceramics, textiles, glass, cutlery, jewellery, leather goods and musical instruments) can now be protected as EU geographical indications.

Word marks: capitalisation and single letters

Two further changes in this year’s Guidelines will be of immediate relevance to opposition and likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

First, the updated Guidelines confirm that differences in capitalisation have no impact on the comparison of word marks. Marks that differ only in the use of upper and lower case letters are now treated as identical.

Second, the Guidelines now state that a single letter, where it is not stylised or is only slightly stylised, will generally be considered to have weak distinctive character in itself.

Opposition proceedings: extensions and suspensions

Two procedural refinements in opposition proceedings are also worth flagging for those managing active EUTM portfolios.

First, parties requesting further extensions of time limits are no longer required to submit supporting evidence alongside the request, though the request must still be reasoned and based on exceptional circumstances.

Second, following an initial joint request for a six-month suspension of opposition proceedings, any subsequent joint request for an extension will be automatically granted for a period of eighteen months. These changes simplify the management of complex opposition matters and provide useful additional flexibility where parties are engaged in parallel negotiations or related proceedings.

Design reform

Although this article focuses on trade mark practice, it is worth noting that the 2026 Guidelines also reflect the completion of Phase II of the EU Design Reform, which came into effect on 1 July 2026.

The updated design guidance addresses graphic representation requirements (sufficiently clear representation is now a filing requirement), and introduces new rules distinguishing between static, animated and dynamic representations.

Evolution rather than revolution

The annual publication of the Guidelines is always a useful reminder that trade mark practice evolves even where the underlying legislation remains unchanged. The law itself may be familiar, but its application by the EUIPO continues to develop through judicial decisions, legislative reform and accumulated examination practice.

For many businesses, the practical effect of the 2026 revisions may be relatively limited. For advisers and brand owners with active EU trade mark portfolios, however, the changes provide useful insight into the Office’s current thinking and are likely to influence filing strategies, specification drafting and contentious proceedings over the coming year.

As ever, while the Guidelines do not bind the General Court or the Court of Justice, they remain the clearest indication of how the EUIPO will approach the examination and administration of EU trade marks in practice.

All the thoughts and commentary that HLaw publishes on this website, including those set out above, are subject to the terms and conditions of use of this website.  None of the above constitutes legal advice and is not to be relied upon.  Much of the above will no doubt fall out of date and conflict with future law and practice one day.  None of the above should be relied upon.  Always seek your own independent professional advice.

Humphreys Law