Skip to main content
Log in

Mediation at OHIM: an alternative to litigation?

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

OHIM offers mediation at the appeal stage of inter partes proceedings as an alternative to litigating before the Boards of Appeal and the EU Courts in Luxembourg. This facility builds on OHIM’s mandate to invite the parties to reach a friendly settlement and is free of charge (if the mediation takes place at OHIM’s premises in Alicante) or subject to a small administrative charge (if the mediation takes place at OHIM’s offices in Brussels). Not only does mediation accelerate dispute resolution and cut costs (as compared with classic litigation) but also it allows business interests to be factored into a confidential settlement. Mediation at OHIM uses multilingual, accredited Office staff and maintains a flexible format, guaranteeing the neutrality and impartiality of the mediator (who may, inter alia, not take in proceedings involving the same parties) and encouraging attendance of both the parties and their lawyers. Only in exceptional circumstances will mediation not be useful and is particularly suited to complex, multi-actions where costs are mounting and negotiations have reached a stalemate, or sensitive issues need to be kept private, or where business interests make it interesting for on-going relationships to be preserved. Typically mediations involve disputes in the context of opposition, invalidation, ownership, license and infringement controversies. Mediations at OHIM are facilitative in style and rely on a combination of individual and private meetings to bring the parties closer together and negotiate in a controlled and confidential environment. Heads of agreement are generally drawn up at the end of a full day’s mediation meeting, with formal settlement agreements following shortly thereafter. In the small minority of cases in which mediation cannot lead to settlement, the proceedings before the Boards of Appeal resume (albeit without the involvement of the mediation). All papers relating to the mediation are destroyed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

  2. The UKIPO, the Philippines, Singapore and Brazil also offer mediation using their own mediators (although in the latter two cases, mediation will only be conducted by national office personnel if both parties are domiciled in that country).

  3. Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.

  4. A dispute board is a new dispute resolution process where either one or more dispute board members act as the dispute resolution/prevention facility on large scale construction projects for the life of the project. The dispute board is appointed jointly by the parties—the employer and the contractor—at the start of the project and it remains in place for the life of the project and in many cases even past the construction completion date. Dispute boards are now being used on a variety of long term concession matters, in ship building, and even in health care as part of a hospital system’s dispute resolution process—see http://www.chern.net/adjudication-dispute-boards/—author of Chern on Dispute Boards—Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, London, 2007.

  5. CEDR reports that 75 % of cases are resolved on the day of mediation with 14 % resolving shortly thereafter—see http://www.cedr.com/docslib/CEDRMediatorAudit2010.pdf.

  6. Decision No 2011-1 adopted by the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal on 14 April 2011 on the amicable settlement of disputes (the ‘Decision on Mediation’) and Decision No EX-11-04 adopted by the President of OHIM on 1 August 2011 concerning the administrative charges related to mediation.

  7. Un mauvais arrangement vaut mieux qu’un bon procès.

  8. For example, if money laundering or other criminal activities of one of the parties came to light.

  9. Article 42(4) and 57(4) CTMR.

  10. Article 31(5) CDIR.

  11. Presidium decision 2011-1 on mediation, published 3 October 2011 and Rules on mediation adopted July 2013.

  12. https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/mediation.

  13. President of OHIM’s decision EX-11-04 concerning the administration charges related to mediation of 1 August 2011.

  14. Judgment C-0101/11P of 18 October 2012.

  15. Judgment T-0164/02 of 10 November 2004; judgment C-0029/05P of 13 March 2007; judgment T-0402/07 of 25 March 2009 and judgment C-0193/09 P of 4 March 2010.

  16. A specific form exists (although it is not mandatory to use it)—see https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/mediation.

  17. See website above.

  18. For more details on these styles see http://www.mediate.com/articles/fosterk1.cfm.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon Humphreys.

Additional information

This article is based on a presentation given at the Annual Conference on Trade Marks and Designs in Europe 2014, organised by ERA and hosted by OHIM on 30–31 October 2014 in Alicante.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Humphreys, G. Mediation at OHIM: an alternative to litigation?. ERA Forum 16, 61–71 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0372-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0372-5

Keywords

Navigation