2026 ECTA Annual Conference in Dublin

Martin Gutwillinger will be attending the 2026 ECTA 44th Annual Conference in Dublin from June 16th to June 19th 2026

Martin is eagerly looking forward to reconnecting with colleagues and making new connections.

Brands and Corporate Identity: More than a logo — an Asset worth protecting

A company’s trademarks are protected under industrial property law, a branch of intellectual property (IP), which encompasses rights relating to intangible creations.

Over the past sixty years, the economy has undergone profound transformation. Businesses have shifted from predominantly industrial models to systems increasingly driven by intangible assets. In this environment, intellectual property has gradually emerged as a central strategic lever — sometimes long before companies fully recognized its importance.

Even today, every company generates intellectual property, often without fully realizing its scope or economic value. Ideas, projects, concepts — but what can actually be protected and leveraged?

While an idea in itself cannot be protected, its tangible expression can. This includes technical products or processes derived from it, names and logos linked to a new product or service, product design, graphical user interfaces, technically oriented algorithms, and more.

In this article, we focus specifically on trademarks — one of the most visible, yet also most sensitive, pillars of a company’s identity.

Brands surround us every day

Whenever you see a logo in a shop, in advertising, or simply on the street, you instinctively associate that sign with a particular company — and with certain expectations regarding products or services.

What feels natural today is the result of gradual evolution. Several decades ago, a brand primarily served as a means of identification. Over time, it has become a true marker of trust in an environment where supply has expanded and diversified dramatically.

A logo, a name, visual elements — these allow a company to be recognized. But behind these familiar signs lies a deeper reality: the brand itself. It is not merely a graphic or marketing element — it embodies the company’s identity and represents one of its most valuable assets.

A Compass in a saturated world

Every day we are exposed to hundreds of logos, slogans and company names. Yet only a few leave a lasting imprint.

Take a simple example: two cafés located just a few meters apart. Why does a customer instinctively choose the one whose name feels familiar? Because it carries an associated experience, a perceived level of quality, a promise consistently fulfilled over time.

This guiding function has strengthened over the years. As markets have become global and digital, brands have evolved into essential cognitive shortcuts — helping us distinguish, trust and decide.

An intangible asset that has gained strategic importance

What makes a brand particularly valuable is its intangible nature. It has no physical form, yet its economic value is very real.

Sixty years ago, few companies placed trademarks at the heart of their asset strategy. Today, brands rank among the most highly valued corporate assets — sometimes far exceeding tangible assets in importance.

This reality now applies to businesses of all sizes. SMEs, startups and independent entrepreneurs alike understand that a brand crystallizes:

• accumulated reputation,
• customer trust,
• marketing and commercial investment,
• and the company’s own history.

A strong brand attracts, retains, facilitates partnerships and opens new markets. But like any strategic asset, it must be properly protected.

The risk of failing to protect a Brand: A recurring lesson

Experience shows that many businesses still make the same mistake: investing in a name, logo or visual identity without prior clearance searches or trademark registration.

This is not a new phenomenon. For decades, similar situations have repeated themselves — companies forced to rebrand after years of use, avoidable legal disputes, and sometimes irreversible reputational loss.

In today’s global and digital environment, these risks have intensified. An unprotected brand can be copied, challenged or misused far more quickly than in the past.

Clearance searches: An essential first step

Before filing a trademark application, it is crucial to verify that it does not conflict with prior rights. This process — known as a clearance or availability search — has become indispensable.

Although such searches already existed decades ago, their complexity has increased with market internationalization and the multiplication of registers. They now require thorough analysis of signs, classes of goods and services, and relevant territories.

This preliminary step helps avoid costly disputes and ensures that a brand strategy rests on solid foundations.

Registering a Trademark: A foundational act, then and now

Once availability has been confirmed, filing a trademark application is the cornerstone of legal protection. Registration grants the exclusive right to use the sign for the designated goods and services within the covered territory.

While this principle has remained unchanged for decades, the strategic stakes have evolved significantly. Effective protection today requires:

• carefully defined territorial strategies,
• anticipation of the company’s future development,
• and active monitoring in an environment of increasingly frequent filings.

A trademark is no longer protected only for present operations, but to support long-term growth.

A Brand as memory and projection

Beyond its legal dimension, a brand is an identity marker. It carries the company’s history, its values, and its future ambitions.

Brands that endure are those that evolve without losing their essence. They adapt to new uses, markets and technologies while preserving a consistent identity core.

Thinking about a brand therefore means thinking about both legacy and projection.

Anticipating tomorrow’s challenges

The challenges ahead are numerous: accelerating innovation, deeper digitalization, artificial intelligence, the multiplication of channels and territories of use.

In this context, trademark protection must become increasingly strategic, proactive and adaptable. It can no longer be a one-time administrative step but must be embedded within a long-term vision.

The role of specialized guidance over time

Faced with these challenges, many companies choose to work with Patent and Trademark Attorneys. Their role is to secure the process, anticipate risks, and build a protection strategy aligned with market realities and corporate ambitions.

When it comes to trademarks, these are often lawyers specialised in IP law, whose support typically includes:

• assessing the chances of successful registration, including clearance searches;
• determining appropriate territories for protection;
• drafting precise descriptions of goods and services;
• and implementing monitoring systems to detect potential infringements.

When it comes to protecting technological innovations, specialized engineers with IP legal background intervene in prior art searches and patent drafting.

It is an investment that preserves a brand’s long-term value and helps avoid costly litigation.

Building a sustainable brand takes time

In a constantly evolving world, a brand remains an anchor. It connects a company to its customers, differentiates its products and embodies its vision.

But for it to fulfil this role over time, it must be carefully designed, protected and managed with foresight. Trademark protection is not a mere administrative formality — it is a strategic decision rooted in long-term thinking.

Without a brand, there is no strong identity.
Without protection, there is no continuity.
And without vision, there is no lasting brand.

WTR 1000 2026 rankings

We are proud to share that Office Freylinger has once again been recognized in the World Trademark Review #WTR1000 rankings confirming Office Freylinger as being “a trusted force in protecting and defending brands”.
As we celebrate our 60th anniversary, this recognition highlights the collective dedication of our entire team — past and present — whose expertise, collaboration, and passion continue to drive our success.  

This year, two of our senior Trademark Attorneys, Marie-Christine Simon and Martin Gutwillinger have been listed as “Recommended Individuals”, reflecting the firm’s enduring commitment to excellence in trademark law and client service.  

Our warmest thanks go to our clients for their trust and partnership, and to our exceptional colleagues for their commitment and teamwork. 
Together, we celebrate this milestone and look forward to many more years of innovation, collaboration, and shared success in protecting intellectual property worldwide.

Office Freylinger – 60 years of protected ideas, and moving forward.

Sixty years.
In the life of a company, this is never a trivial milestone. It speaks of longevity and consistency, of the ability to navigate changing eras and adapt to economic, technological and societal transformations. It also tells a deeply human story — one shaped by generations of women and men who have carried forward a vision, a craft and a shared culture.

In 2026, Office Freylinger celebrates its 60th anniversary.
Sixty years of commitment to intellectual property.
Sixty years of legal and strategic expertise.
Sixty years of adaptation, innovation and knowledge transmission.

This anniversary is more than a symbolic date. It marks the beginning of a year dedicated to celebration, reflection and projection — embodied through a series of thematic articles published throughout the year. Conceived as a guiding thread, this series connects our history, our professions and the challenges that lie ahead.

60 Years of Longevity: A Foundation of Trust

Founded in 1966, Office Freylinger has grown in a constantly evolving environment, shaped by profound changes in legal frameworks, technologies and market practices. Its continued presence today is first and foremost the result of sustained trust — from clients, partners and employees alike.

Such longevity is no coincidence.
It is rooted in strong values: rigor, independence, excellence and a deep sense of service.
It is also driven by a continuous ability to question established practices, adapt to change and anticipate emerging needs in the protection, valorisation and defence of intangible assets.

In a world where innovation accelerates and intellectual property has become a strategic lever, endurance itself is a proof of relevance.

Strong Local Roots, International Reach

Established in Luxembourg since its inception, Office Freylinger has developed within an ecosystem naturally open to the world. A crossroads country, multilingual and international by nature, Luxembourg has fostered a professional culture grounded in cross-border cooperation, market diversity and legal complexity.

This strong local anchoring has never been a limitation. On the contrary, it has become a strategic advantage — enabling the firm to support clients well beyond national borders, across Europe and internationally. Today, Office Freylinger acts as a trusted partner in the protection and valorisation of intellectual property assets worldwide, coordinating strategies, procedures and expertise on a global scale, while maintaining the proximity and high standards that define its identity.

60 Years of Expertise: A Deeply Embedded DNA

Intellectual property has been at the very core of Office Freylinger’s DNA for six decades. Trademarks, patents, designs, copyrights, litigation and international strategies: expertise has continuously expanded in response to growing complexity and the globalisation of markets.

Beyond legal fields, however, a true culture of expertise has taken shape — one built on:

• technical and regulatory mastery,
• a deep understanding of clients’ business challenges,
• long-term support,
• and the transmission of knowledge across generations of professionals.

These sixty years tell a story not only of continuity, but of constant learning.

An Anniversary Year Focused on Sharing

To mark this anniversary, we chose not to limit ourselves to a retrospective perspective. Throughout the year, we will publish a series of articles exploring key intellectual property themes, closely linked to our professions, our expertise and the transformations shaping our environment.

Each publication will connect:

• the experience accumulated over the past 60 years,
• today’s intellectual property challenges,
• and future perspectives for companies, creators and innovators.

This series is designed to be both educational and strategic, while offering a forward-looking vision. It addresses our clients, partners and peers, as well as anyone seeking to better understand the central role intellectual property plays in the economy of tomorrow.

60 Years — and Already Looking Ahead

Celebrating sixty years is not an endpoint. It is a milestone.
The future of intellectual property is being shaped today, at the intersection of profound transformations: digitalisation, artificial intelligence, globalised markets, new innovation models, and growing challenges related to sustainability and sovereignty.

In this evolving landscape, Office Freylinger intends to continue fulfilling its role — as a strategic partner capable of supporting clients not only on technical and legal matters, but also through a holistic and forward-looking vision of their intangible assets.

The IP solutions of tomorrow are being built today. They require anticipation, agility, a deep understanding of emerging technologies and continuous dialogue with innovation stakeholders. This is the dynamic in which Office Freylinger is firmly engaged.

A Story That Continues

Through this anniversary year, we celebrate our past, affirm our present and prepare for the future. The specially designed 60th anniversary logo embodies this continuity — a bridge between heritage and projection, between accumulated expertise and that which we will continue to develop.

Sixty years after its foundation, Office Freylinger remains true to its core identity, while resolutely looking toward what comes next.

Welcome to the 60th anniversary year.
A year to celebrate, to share, and to imagine together the future of intellectual property.

Paperjam Brand Manager 2026

Office Freylinger est partenaire du Paperjam Brand Manager 2026 – rencontrez notre équipe lors de la cérémonie de remise des prix ce 22 janvier 2026 à la « KUFA » à Esch/Alzette.

Ce prix récompense celles et ceux qui façonnent les marques avec intelligence, cohérence et vision — des qualités que cultive Office Freylinger depuis six décennies. 

Nous sommes curieux de connaître les gagnants de cette 3^ème édition du Brand Manager et félicitons tous les nominés.

Class transitions in Nice Classification on 1st January 2026

Every five years, the Nice Classification that governs the classification of goods and services is reviewed and a new edition is published. A review means amendments, and amendments means restructuring within the framework and adjustment of trademark applications.

Here are the main changes to note before the new Nice Classification comes into force this upcoming year, on January 1^st, 2026:

• All goods in class 9 related to glasses and contact lenses will be transferred to class 10 which cover medical related goods.
• Emergency and rescue vehicles or equipment presently covered by class 9 will be moved to class 12 which covers all vehicles and apparatus for the transportation of people or goods.

Class	Added	Deleted
1	Essential oils for use in manufacture
3	Perfumes Essential oils for fragrance / cosmetic purposes	Essential oils
9		Glasses & contact lenses Emergency and rescue vehicles
10	Glasses & contact lenses
12	Emergency and rescue vehicles

What impact will this new classification have on trademarks?

• Registered trademarks will not be affected and will not need to be reclassified.
• Trademark application submitted before January 1^st, 2026, will also not be affected by the amendments and will therefore not need to be reclassified.
• However, trademark application submitted after January 1^st, 2026 will be affected by it and will have to apply the amendments of the new classification of goods and services.

Office Freylinger’s Trademark Team is happy to assist for any question in regard to the amended classification and your trademark protection.

Packaging cosmétique et parasitisme : la Cour d’appel de Paris rappelle les limites de la protection face aux tendances du marché

Le 16 octobre 2025, la Cour d’appel de Paris a rejeté les demandes faites par la société La Rosée qui reprochait à la société Caudalie d’avoir reproduit le packaging d’un de ses produits comme suit :  

La Rosée se prévalait de faits de concurrence déloyale et parasitaire en arguant que les actes de parasitisme commis par la société Caudalie, vis-à-vis de leur « stick solaire », sont caractérisés par la reprise du conditionnement et de campagnes promotionnelles similaires à ceux de son stick, ainsi que des actes de concurrence déloyale caractérisés par l’apparition d’une confusion dans l’esprit du public.

Selon la Cour d’Appel :

• Aucune pièce n’a été apportée démontrant des freins éventuels au développement international de la société La Rosée, ni démontrant l’existence d’un préjudice lié à la commercialisation du stick solaire de la société Caudalie.
• Le trouble manifestement illicite n’est pas établi puisque les similitudes soulignées ne dépassent pas les codes esthétiques communs.
  • Le format cylindrique large n’est pas une innovation – ce format est largement utilisé par les acteurs du marché cosmétique en matière de protection solaire.
• Le risque de confusion dans l’esprit du public est assez mineur dans la mesure où si la colorimétrie des deux produits présente des similarités, ceux-ci se « distinguent par l’apposition très apparente de chacune des deux marques sur le tube ».
• Le recours au même fabriquant, antérieur à la mise au marché du stick solaire de La Rosée, n’est pas pertinent pour établir l’existence d’actes de concurrences déloyale ou de parasitisme.

La Cour d’Appel a donc jugé que les actes de concurrence déloyale et de parasitisme n’étaient pas démontrés et a donc rejeté les requêtes de la Rosée.

Bien entendu, cette décision ne doit pas être généralisée. Le parasitisme demeure en soi recevable concernant les packagings dans le domaine cosmétique.

Toutefois, démontrer une concurrence déloyale et un parasitisme est difficile dans ce secteur, puisque la Cour demande des preuves précises et concrètes, et protège de manière large le concept de concurrence sur le marché, pour permettre une compétition équitable et d’éviter l’abus de position dominante.

Ainsi, les similitudes de forme, de couleur ou de style, lorsqu’elles relèvent de tendances de marché, ne suffisent pas à caractériser en elle-même un parasitisme.

Il convient alors plutôt de s’orienter vers des dépôts de marques tridimensionnelle ou de dessins et modèles qui permettent alors d’invoquer d’autres fondements à l’action.

Les équipes d’Office Freylinger sont à votre disposition si vous avez des questions en matière de la défense de vos droits de propriété intellectuelle.

EU Court ruling: “non-alcoholic gin” is no longer allowed

In a recent decision, the Court of Justice of the EU (Case C-563/24) has clarified that a drink with 0%_o alcohol cannot be marketed using the term “gin”, even with qualifiers like “alcohol-free” or “virgin”, considering that “gin” is protected under the EU spirit regulation. The term “gin” is thus reserved for spirits with at least 37.5% alcohol and specific production methods and ingredients. Using the term for 0%_o beverages is considered misleading for consumers.

The products themselves can still be sold but the word “gin” is now banned on labels and marketing for alcohol-free alternatives.

A major change for anyone in the beverage sector to keep in mind and to consider when creating your marketing campaign.

Do not hesitate to reach out to our experts to check if the names you intend to use are free to use.

”sufficiently fanciful, surprising and unexpected” to be a trademark

The EUIPO’s Cancellation Division declared in a decision dated May 15^th, 2025 that “when standard typefaces incorporate graphic design elements into the lettering and these elements have a sufficient impact on the mark as a whole, this gives it a distinctive character”.

The distinctive character of a trademark, also known as distinctiveness, is one of a condition for a trademark to be registered.  The distinctiveness refers to the ability of the trademark to clearly identify the origin of goods or services, distinguishing them from those of competitors. An element of a sign is not distinctive if it is exclusively descriptive of the goods and services themselves or of the characteristics of those goods and services (such as their quality, value, purpose, provenance, etc.) and/or if its use in trade is common for those goods and services. Similarly, an element of a sign that is generic (such as a common shape of a container or a common color) will also lack distinctiveness.

In this case, it is about a trademark using the sole stylized verbal element “NICE”, namely the European Union trademark which covers various ice products including ice creams. The applicant of the cancellation action claimed in its arguments:

• The word “NICE” has different meanings and on its own will not create a lasting impression of the mark in the consumer’s mind
• With regard to the contested goods, the public would, therefore, understand the trade mark as a simple claim in the form of ‘pleasant ice cream’, ‘pleasant sorbet’, etc.
• The fact that the letter ‘N’ in the contested mark is inverted and that the letter ‘I’ has two dots does not alter this assessment

However, when a word is graphically modified causing a consumer to analytically reflect on the meaning of the mark, it will change the consumer’s perception of the word and allow them to associate it with a specific brand, enabling the distinctiveness of a trademark, as the consumer will be able to identify the origin of the goods or services. 

This is exactly what the EUIPO decided in this case to overturn the cancellation applicant’s arguments.

The EUIPO stated that a reversed “N” and a diaeresis “I” is sufficient enough to render the mark distinct due to the unusual combination that an average consumer would not expect, and that the words stylization was enough. It is irrelevant to determine whether the sign ‘NICE’ is descriptive of the contested goods, since the stylisation of the sign is sufficiently fanciful, surprising and unexpected to render the mark distinctive. Therefore, the graphic elements have a significant impact on the contested sign. Consumers will not clearly perceive, without further reflection, that the sign refers to the word ‘NICE’.

This decision is more than welcome and will allow this brand, well known in Luxembourg for ice cream in particular, to continue to delight the taste buds of gourmets while maintaining its monopoly as a trademark.

The lessons here?

• Adding stylized elements to word elements can considerably increase the distinctiveness and then enable the trademark to be registered

Don’t be shy! Be inventive and style your mark in a way that it starts making you view it in a different light. 

• A cancellation action for lack of distinctiveness has been filed against your trademark? Do not admit defeat automatically because all is not lost in advance.

Here at Office Freylinger, we can advise you on what makes a trademark distinctive and assist you through all your trademark registration process and cancellation actions

Ⓓid you already mark your registered designs?

Starting 1 May 2025, the first phase* of the EU Design Package Reform comes into effect, introducing significant changes to the European design right system.

The reforms aims to:

• modernize, clarify, and expand design protection, particularly in response to technological advancements and the digital economy including 3D printing age
• Harmonize the different procedures
• Facilitate the registration process and reduce the cost

Summary of Modifications to European Design Right Effective 1 May 2025

1. Terminology Updates

• We will from now on talk about “Registered EU Design” (REUD) , “Unregistered EU Design” (UEUD)and “EU Designs Court”
• A new design protection symbol Ⓓ will be introduced, similar to ® and ©, to indicate design protection.

2. Broadened Scope of Protection

• The definition of “design” is expanded to explicitly include movement, animation, and interior/exterior environments (e.g., shop layouts), codifying current EUIPO practice
• The definition of “product” now covers both physical and virtual products, including graphical user interfaces, virtual objects, and spatial configurations in virtual environments

3. Procedural Innovations

• The “unity of class” requirement for multiple design applications is abolished. Applicants can include up to 50 designs in a single application, regardless of their classification, offering greater flexibility and cost savings.
• Deferred publication rules change for new application: the publication fee is abolished, and design holders must now explicitly surrender the design before the end of the deferral period to prevent publication and the deferment fee has to be paid at the rights moment in time, otherwise the design will be published immediately. For pending application, the “old system” remains in place.

4. Fee Structure and Renewals

• Renewal fees for designs will increase significantly.
• The new system applies to all designs with a renewal period starting on or after 1 May 2025.
• The renewal date is calculated starting at the filing date of the design.

5. Repair Clause

• Component parts of complex products will not be protected if used solely for the purpose of repair to restore the original appearance of the product, provided their appearance is dependent on that of the complex product (the transitional clause becomes permanent).

The changes collectively modernize the EU design right system, making it more accessible, efficient, and better suited to the realities of digital and global markets.

Don’t hesitate to contact our experienced Design Attorneys Marie-Christine SIMON and Eugénie DESMET, to obtain more information on the protection of your designs under the new legislative framework and to benefit from these amendments.

---

*Further changes are foreseen to enter into force on 1^st July 2026. The deadline for transposition of the new Directive into national law expires on 9^th December 2027.

Celebrating Excellence in IP Law – WRT 1000 in 2025

We are proud to announce that Marie-Christine SIMON has been recognized in the World Trademark Review 1000 in 2025 ranking.

WTR 1000 – the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals – a unique guide that identifies the top trademark professionals in key jurisdictions around the globe. The WTR 1000 focuses exclusively on trademark practice and has firmly established itself as the definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking world-class legal trademark expertise.

McDonald’s loses chicken ‘Big Mac’ trademark battle

In an article in December 2022 we reported a Decision from the EUIPO Board of appeal, whereby a previous decision cancelling McDonald’s EU Trademark “BIG MAC” had been overturned. In said previous decision the Cancellation division had decided that the evidence of use for the mark “BIG MAC” submitted by McDonald’s had not been sufficient.

But this was not the end of the story and the other party, the Irish fast food chain Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd. brought the matter before the General Court of the European Union, contesting again the genuine use of the mark “BIG MAC” by McDonald’s. The General Court analysed the evidence of use submitted by McDonald’s in detail and came to the conclusion that McDonald’s had not proven use of the “BIG MAC” trademark in relation to chicken products or services “associated with operating restaurants”. With respect to chicken sandwiches, McDonald’s submitted printouts of advertising posters, screenshots of a television advertisement which was broadcast in France in 2016 and screenshots from the Facebook account of McDonald’s France in 2016, which show use in relation to “BIG MAC” sandwiches of chicken, but in the view of the General Court do not make it possible to ascertain in what quantities, or with what regularity and recurrence, the goods concerned were distributed. The evidence in relation do chicken burgers does furthermore not contain any indications as regards the prices and is thus considered insufficient.

As regards McDonald’s restaurant services, the General Court finds that it would be contrary to Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009 to hold that use in connection with goods could also prove use in connection with specific services. The evidence which was submitted by McDonald’s does not, in the General Court’s view, serve to prove that the contested mark has been used in connection with ‘services rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’.

As the matter now stands, McDonald’s can maintain the “BIG MAC” mark for the meat sandwiches everyone knows, but will lose trademark protection for chicken sandwiches and restaurant services in relation to this mark.

The “lessons learned” that we indicated in our previous article are still valid, namely:

• It is not because the mark is widely known that its genuine use will be automatically recognized by the EUIPO. Proof of use should be submitted as for any other trademark. Proof of the use of a trademark must be provided according to certain criteria, the EUIPO not being able to rely on facts that are not submitted to it
• This case is an opportunity to remind trademarks owners of the importance of collecting regularly relevant documents showing the use of their trademarks to be able to defend their rights within the scope of a non-use cancellation action.

This decision can still be appealed to the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice, but only under very restrictive conditions.