Romanian trademarks · OSIM opposition · Applicant-side counsel

Your Romanian trademark application has passed examination, but the proprietor of an earlier right has opposed it before OSIM.

The brand may already be on packaging, in a launch campaign or tied to a distribution deal. The next decision is commercial as well as legal: defend the filing, narrow it, negotiate a workable arrangement or change course before more money is committed.

This guide is for companies and founders who have received an opposition to a trademark application at the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM).

It addresses the applicant’s choices after an opposition, including proof of use, settlement and the next contested step.

If OSIM itself has raised an examination objection, the procedure and response are different. See our guide to an OSIM trademark refusal for that route.

What does the opposition actually threaten?

Under Article 26(1) of Romanian Trademark Law no. 84/1998, in its current republication, an interested person may oppose a trademark application on the relative grounds in Article 6 within two months after publication of the application’s acceptance.

That publication event matters. It should not be confused with the earlier publication of the application or with the date on which your company first learned of a competitor’s objection.

Article 6 includes conflicts involving identical signs for identical goods or services, and cases where the similarity of signs and goods or services creates a likelihood of confusion, including association.

Earlier rights can include Romanian marks, EU trade marks and international registrations effective in Romania. An opposition based on an earlier mark with a reputation or another earlier right may call for a different analysis.

A familiar-looking logo is therefore only part of the question. The protected sign, filing and priority dates, exact product and service descriptions, market use and legal ground asserted all matter.

Ask whether the opponent targets the entire application or only a subset of goods and services. A partial conflict may support a proportionate limitation, but the business must understand what that limitation would remove from its expansion plans.

Opposition is also separate from an infringement claim over existing use. A registration dispute may reveal a wider commercial risk, yet an OSIM decision on the application does not by itself resolve every potential market-use dispute.

Before changing packaging or offering to withdraw the filing, counsel should examine both the registration position and the practical cost of continuing to use the brand.

Which notice have you received, and what is due next?

Article 27 of Law no. 84/1998 provides a two-month period after OSIM notifies the applicant of an opposition for the parties to explore an amicable resolution.

The parties may jointly request an extension for an expressly stated period of no more than three months. Under the consolidated implementing regulation, that joint request must be filed with OSIM before the original two-month period expires. An informal conversation or unilateral request does not extend the stage.

If no agreement is reached, OSIM gives the opponent 30 days to file supporting arguments and evidence.

OSIM then communicates those submissions to the applicant and gives the applicant 30 days to state its position. Under the implementing regulation, a request for proof of genuine use must be filed with OSIM no later than the date on which that period expires. A separate opportunity to comment follows if proof-of-use evidence is communicated.

Failing to submit a position does not automatically admit the opponent’s case, but Article 27 permits OSIM to decide on the material in the file. Silence may leave a factual assertion or an avoidable distinction unanswered.

For a company handling the opposition internally, the immediate administrative task is simple: retain every OSIM notice and its proof of service, record the date and identify which stage the document concerns.

Do not work from an assumed “30 days from the first opposition email.” The applicant’s substantive response period is tied to OSIM’s later communication of the opponent’s submissions.

Under Article 15(2), an authorised representative, such as a lawyer or industrial property attorney, is mandatory if the applicant has no domicile, seat or real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the EU or EEA, except for filing the trademark application itself.

How strong is the earlier-right claim?

Obtain the opposition, the earlier registration or application details and any documents cited in support. Confirm the proprietor of each asserted right and the dates on which those rights take effect in Romania.

Cross-check the records through OSIM’s national trademark search resources, EUIPO’s TMview guidance and WIPO’s international registration search where relevant, rather than relying only on the opponent’s exhibits.

Compare the word and figurative elements in the forms actually filed. A small typographic adjustment does not necessarily resolve a conflict, while an apparently shared word may be weak or used in meaningfully different contexts.

Goods and services are not interchangeable simply because they sit in the same Nice class. The wording, nature, purpose, users, channels and possible commercial connection need an assessment on the actual products.

The company’s own materials can help explain its intended use, but a registration application is assessed against its specified goods and services. A very broad specification can create an overlap that the present business never intended. This is also a reason to revisit the company’s trademark filing and protection strategy.

Where the opponent invokes reputation, the factual showing and the statutory theory require attention beyond an ordinary side-by-side comparison of two labels.

Ask what outcome the opponent seeks: refusal for all goods, refusal for identified categories, or leverage for a coexistence agreement. That distinction helps management set a sensible budget for the defence.

A legal opinion at this stage can be short and decision-oriented: likelihood of success on the pleaded grounds, evidence gaps, commercially viable limitations and the risks of continuing to launch under the sign.

Can you ask the opponent to prove genuine use?

Article 26(4)–(5) of Law no. 84/1998 allows the applicant, in the stated circumstances, to request evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark for the goods or services relied on during the five years preceding the opposed application’s filing or priority date, or a proper reason for non-use. The earlier mark must have been registered at least five years before that filing or priority date.

The implementing regulation measures that five-year period from completion of the earlier mark’s registration procedure. It provides a separate starting point for international registrations: the date from which the mark can no longer be refused or opposed.

The request must be filed with OSIM no later than the date on which the applicant’s 30-day period to state its position under Article 27(3) expires. A later request risks losing this procedural option.

OSIM then gives the opponent a period of up to two months after notification to provide the material. If the required proof is absent, the opposition is rejected to the extent it relies on that earlier mark; any other pleaded rights need their own assessment.

If use is established for only some goods or services, the earlier mark is treated for the opposition as covering that proven part. The remaining comparison may be much narrower than the register entry initially suggested.

An EU trade mark relied on as an earlier right raises genuine-use questions under the applicable EU framework. The place, time, nature and extent of use should be assessed against the legal test for that right.

Do not ask for proof of use mechanically where the statutory age condition is not met or where the opponent relies on a different kind of earlier right. It may waste attention needed for the strongest defence.

Equally, do not concede a broad specification merely because the opponent supplied a few invoices. Those invoices must be connected to the sign, the relevant period and the specific goods or services that matter to the opposition.

Preserve your own evidence and instructions so that counsel can respond to the use material within the separate period triggered by OSIM’s communication.

Should you narrow the application or negotiate coexistence?

Article 30 permits the applicant to withdraw the application or limit the listed goods and services during the procedure. It does not turn a substantial alteration of the sign or an expanded specification into a simple amendment of the existing filing.

Limitation is different from dividing an application. Article 17(5) restricts division that would separate contested goods or services while the opposition remains pending.

Consider a limitation where the challenged goods are genuinely peripheral, the intended launch fits within a narrower description and the change does not invite a later dispute over what the parties meant.

Before proposing it, check the product roadmap, planned licensing, online channels and countries where the brand will be used. A small concession on paper may eliminate the class of service a buyer or investor expects to see protected.

A coexistence discussion might address the form of the mark, field of use, customers, channels, packaging and future filings. It may also require a practical position on existing inventory and a timetable for any transition.

Article 6(4) recognises the consent of the proprietor of certain earlier rights to the later registration. The opponent’s withdrawal or consent should be documented in terms that actually solve the OSIM opposition; Article 32(2) also addresses the conclusion of the registration procedure after withdrawal or a final opposition decision.

Under the implementing regulation, an agreement followed during the amicable period by withdrawal of the opposition or application, or by limitation to goods or services outside the opposition, can lead the OSIM opposition commission to record the end of the opposition procedure in a decision.

Separate contractual promises about future use and enforcement require precise drafting and appropriate parties.

An agreement about this Romanian filing should not be assumed to settle EU trade mark, domain-name, unfair-competition or infringement issues unless those matters are expressly considered.

Negotiation may be valuable during the statutory amicable period, but it should be driven by a prepared fallback position. Otherwise the brand owner may overpay for a concession that the opposition evidence cannot support.

What should the applicant’s response contain?

The submission normally begins by defining the application, opponent, earlier rights and scope of the opposition. It should then answer the legal grounds actually invoked rather than repeat general claims that the brand is original.

Where similarity or confusion is disputed, counsel can address the distinctive elements of the signs, the relevant goods or services and how the asserted conflict is said to arise.

Where a genuine-use request is available, identify the qualifying right and evaluate any evidence OSIM has communicated. If the case turns on a limitation, ensure the proposed goods and services can be clearly understood and implemented.

Supporting documents might include the relevant commercial chronology, a dated product description, evidence tied to the opponent’s asserted use or material needed to explain a settlement. The submission should not become a large archive without a point.

Internal emails and marketing plans can contain admissions or sensitive commercial information. Decide what is needed for the record, what requires context and what belongs in a separate negotiation.

The applicant should coordinate the filing position with its launch team. A response claiming two brands operate in distinct markets is weakened if the live website presents the products as direct substitutes.

There is no single template that protects every applicant. The useful deliverable is a coherent position that management can apply to registration, market use and a potential settlement.

What happens if OSIM rules against the application?

Under the opposition and challenge provisions of Law no. 84/1998, the reasoned decision on the opposition may be challenged at OSIM within 30 days of communication, subject to the prescribed fee. OSIM’s commission for challenges (Comisia de contestații) hears that first contestation.

The commission’s decision may then be challenged before the Bucharest Tribunal within 30 days of communication. The tribunal’s judgment is subject only to appeal before the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

The implementing regulation excludes its ordinary deadline-restoration mechanism for a contestation before the OSIM commission.

The proper strategy depends on why the application lost. A missing evidentiary point may justify one course; a specification that is too broad or a mark that has become commercially unsuitable may justify another.

Check whether the refusal affects the entire filing or particular goods and services, and whether a new application would preserve what the company actually needs. A new filing has its own date and cannot be treated as a cost-free correction of the first one.

Appealing the registration outcome also does not suspend every brand-launch risk. Separate advice may be needed if the opponent alleges infringement or asks commercial partners to stop selling the goods.

Keep the formal decision and proof of communication. A consultation request to a lawyer does not itself preserve an OSIM or court deadline.

When is applicant-side counsel worth instructing?

The cost of a disputed registration is often small compared with a packaging change, cancelled distributor order, delayed financing or rebrand across several markets.

Atrium can review the opposition and cited rights, map the affected goods and services, assess whether proof of use should be requested, and advise on a response, limitation or negotiated resolution.

If the matter continues, representation can cover submissions before OSIM and the applicable challenge route, subject to an agreed scope of engagement.

For an initial review, send the full OSIM correspondence with proof of receipt, application number and specification, opponent’s documents, planned goods and markets, the brand’s current use and any communications with the proprietor of the earlier right.

Tell us about a product launch, distributor promise or existing stock. These facts may change the settlement range even where they do not decide OSIM’s legal test.

We advise the applicant in this scenario; any conflict check and engagement terms must be completed before representation. No particular OSIM decision or negotiated outcome can be guaranteed.

Request an applicant-side OSIM opposition review

Frequently asked questions

Related trademark guidance

AI-assisted content.