The EUIPO’s New Mediation Rules

On 14 July 2025, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) – responsible for managing EU trade marks (EUTMs) and registered EU designs (EUDs) – released the new mediation rules of its Mediation Centre providing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services to all parties involved in intellectual property (IP) disputes pending before the EUIPO.

The EUIPO Mediation Centre (EMC) was launched in 2023 by virtue of Articles 170 and 151(3) of the EU Regulation 2017/1001 on the EUTM ("EUTM Regulation"). Initially, the EMC provided its ADR services only to parties involved in inter partes proceedings pending before the EUIPO Boards of Appeal (viz. at second instance in appeal proceedings concerning decisions of the Opposition Division). By amending its Articles of Establishment and Operation of the Mediation Centre, , the EMC has extended as of 2 June 2025 its services to all parties involved in any inter partes proceedings before the EUIPO – whether first or second instance – EUTM opposition or cancellation proceedings or EUD invalidity proceedings.

Simultaneously, the EMC has also expanded its competence to administer mediations in any other parallel proceedings involving the same parties in any jurisdiction as well as in disputes involving any other IP rights (such as copyright, geographical indications, domain names, patents, and standard essential patents) related to disputes concerning EUTMs or EUDs. Since the launch of the Centre, the EMC has seen a steady increase in its caseload, with mediations usually consolidating multiple related cases pending before the EUIPO between the same disputing parties, with an average ratio of one mediation consolidating three proceedings.

Salient features of the new EUIPO Mediation Rules and a few recommendations

Mediation at the EUIPO is on a voluntary basis only, to which all parties involved need to consent. The mediation process can be initiated at any time based on a unilateral request, a joint request by all disputing parties, or a referral suggested by the rapporteur or case examiner in charge of the case file pending before the EUIPO. In case of a unilateral request, the EMC will notify the mediation request to the other party or parties to confirm whether they consent to initiate the mediation process. Any party involved in any EUIPO inter partes proceeding can request mediation with no additional charges (as it is already included in the fees of the EUIPO inter partes proceedings), provided that the mediation is conducted online or at the EUIPO’s headquarters in Alicante.

If all parties involved agree to proceed with mediation, the EUIPO will suspend ex officio the ongoing adversarial proceeding(s) pending before the EUIPO until the mediation is concluded (while the parties will have to request the competent national authority to suspend any other ongoing proceedings). Remarkably, the mediation process does not eat into the time allocated for the cooling-off period in an EUIPO adversarial proceeding (which can be from two months up to 24 months during which the parties can negotiate an amicable settlement as per Article 6(1) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)), which can resume if the mediation is not successful. Arguably, this choice is questionable as it may give way to guerrilla tactics aimed at unnecessarily prolonging the adversarial proceedings. After all, if the parties could not find an amicable settlement with the support of a mediator, what are the chances that they will find it negotiating by themselves? Hence, it is recommended for the mediation agreement to have an explicit waiver of the cooling-off period to avoid dragged-on and unnecessarily protracted proceedings.

The EMC will suggest a possible candidate as the mediator from its own mediator roster. The suggestion seems primarily language driven as the Centre will propose a candidate that speaks the same languages spoken by the parties. The  mediator roster currently has 51 mediators and is a closed list, as it enlists only employees at the EUIPO. Although Article 170(12) of the EUTM Regulation expressly allows the roster to also include external qualified mediators who are not employees of the EUIPO, the choice of a closed list is motivated by giving the parties access to mediation with no additional charges. This would not be practically feasible in case of an external mediator – who is not already employed at the EUIPO – unless the external mediator’s fee is carved out from the EUIPO inter partes proceeding fees already paid by the parties.

Admittedly, inter partes proceedings fees are modest (€320 to file an opposition, €720 to file an appeal in case of trade mark disputes, and €800 in case of designs disputes). Nonetheless, there may be mediators who are willing to accommodate their fees within these parameters. The fees can be multiplied as many times as the number of parallel proceedings between the same parties pending at the EUIPO that can be solved by a single mediation, thereby increasing the mediator’s remuneration accordingly. Having said this, since 2020, the EUIPO itself has acknowledged the possibility that external IP experts may be willing to offer their services to small and medium-sized enterprises free of charge.

Further, opening the gates of the closed list to external mediators may be necessary to facilitate the EMC’s broader mandate under the new Rules to mediate disputes encompassing not just EUTMs or EUDs, but also any IP rights in any jurisdiction. Since the EUIPO’s employees are primarily trained in the EU trademark and design law, they may not be particularly well-suited to mediate a dispute involving patents or copyrights.

Upon conclusion of the mediation, the mediator will inform the relevant instance of the EUIPO that the mediation process has ended. Within two months of the conclusion of the mediation, the parties may have to resume the EUIPO adversarial proceeding if the mediation failed or undertake some follow-up actions (such as declarations to amend the EUIPO registry) to implement the terms of the settlement agreement before the EUIPO, if the mediation is successful (indeed, the settlement agreement is not self-executing, but rests on the parties’ will).

The settlement agreement must be made in writing, dated, and duly signed by, or on behalf of, the parties. The agreement remains confidential and is not to be provided to the EMC, unless the parties jointly request to deposit it with the EMC acting as a repository. The EMC repository of settlement agreements is accessible to parties to the concerned settlement agreement to obtain confirmation in writing from the EMC that a given settlement agreement has been signed. Upon the joint request of all parties involved in a dispute, the EMC repository can also issue confirmation of the existence of mediation proceedings among the relevant parties as well as the list of related proceedings affected thereby.

Under Article 8 of the previous Mediation Rules, the EUIPO’s mediators committed to adhere to the requirements of impartiality, neutrality, and confidentiality as set out by Articles 170(10) and 170(13) of the EUTMR and the European Code of Conduct for Mediators. Curiously, under the new Rules, the commitment to adhere to the European Code of Conduct for Mediators has disappeared and has been replaced with a mere reference in the recitals (which are not binding) of the executive decision adopting the Rules.

Concerns have been raised since the employees comprising the short roster of mediators regularly sit as adjudicators in EUIPO proceedings. As such, the impartiality of the mediator – in terms of lack of prejudice or absence of preconceived notions with respect to the subject matter of the mediation – may not be fully guaranteed, since the mediator may have already heard a dispute concerning the same EUTM or EUD in a previous proceeding. However, to avoid such a risk, Articles 170(13) and 170(14) of the EUTMR expressly provide that adjudicators in EUIPO proceedings shall not take part in a mediation concerning a case in which they have had prior involvement in proceedings that were subsequently referred to mediation, nor shall they take part as a decision-making member in proceedings that have resumed once a mediation has failed. Thus, in principle, impartiality and neutrality may be preserved.

Nonetheless, maintaining confidentiality of the mediation process and its outcome from the EUIPO (as intended by Article 170(10) of the EUTMR and Article 4 of the European Code of Conduct for Mediators) may, in any event, be irremediably compromised by the appointment of an EUIPO employee as a mediator. Thus, should confidentiality be of the essence, parties may consider opting for a mediation administered by an institution other than the EUIPO and jointly apply for a suspension of the EUIPO proceedings pursuant to Article 71 of the EUTM Delegated Regulation (EUTMDR).

Conclusion

The EMC is off to a fresh start under its amended Articles of Establishment and Operation with its ADR services extended to all EUIPO inter partes proceedings at the first and second instances, and the new Rules with an expanded scope to mediate any IP rights dispute in any jurisdiction (as long as the dispute is related to an EUTM or EUD), in line with the expanding jurisdiction theory characterising many international or national courts or adjudicating bodies. The market will ultimately determine whether there is an appetite for such services. Further, hopefully, the EMC will eventually open its roster to mediators who are not EUIPO employees, which may contribute to increasing its caseload.