Trademark rights arise in two ways: through use and through registration. In Belgium and across the Benelux territory, unregistered marks may attract some protection under unfair competition law, but the practical reality is that unregistered rights are narrow in scope, difficult to enforce, and geographically limited. Registration at BOIP (Benelux Office for Intellectual Property), at the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office), or via the WIPO Madrid System for international protection creates a presumption of ownership, extends protection to the full registered territory, and gives the holder standing to oppose later conflicting marks through administrative proceedings.
A trademark registration is only as strong as the clarity of its specification. The goods and services covered by the registration define the scope of protection. An overly broad specification creates vulnerability to non-use cancellation after five years; an overly narrow specification leaves commercial activities unprotected. Getting the specification right at the filing stage is a strategic decision, not a clerical one. The choice of Nice Classification classes, the drafting of the goods and services descriptions, and the decision between standard TMclass entries and custom descriptions all affect both the coverage and the enforceability of the resulting registration.
A registered trademark that is never enforced is a diminishing asset. Consistent non-enforcement against confusingly similar marks can support arguments of acquiescence, a legal doctrine under which a trademark owner who has tolerated an infringement for an extended period may lose the right to challenge it. Beyond the legal doctrine, non-enforcement sends a commercial signal: that the mark is not actively policed and that the risk of challenge is low. Both consequences erode the exclusivity that makes trademark registration valuable.
Effective enforcement requires a programme, not a series of ad hoc responses. That programme has three components: monitoring, assessment, and response. Monitoring means systematically tracking new trademark applications filed at relevant registries and detecting infringing use in the market, in advertising, on product packaging, in domain registrations, and across online marketplaces. Assessment means evaluating each identified conflict against the likelihood of confusion standard, taking into account the similarity of the signs, the overlap of the goods and services, and the distinctiveness of your earlier mark. Response means acting proportionately and promptly: not every conflict warrants opposition or litigation, but every conflict warrants a documented decision.
The enforcement toolkit spans a wide range of options, and choosing the right tool for each situation is as important as the decision to act at all. A cease and desist letter (a formal written demand addressed to an infringer, asserting the trademark rights and demanding that the infringing activity stop) is the standard first step. It establishes a documented record of notice, which is relevant to damages calculations in any subsequent proceedings. Many disputes are resolved at this stage, particularly where the infringing party is acting in good faith and was unaware of the earlier mark.
Where a cease and desist letter does not resolve the matter, the next tools are administrative: opposition proceedings before BOIP or EUIPO during the publication phase of a conflicting application, or invalidity actions against marks that have already registered. Administrative proceedings are significantly faster and cheaper than court litigation, and they are the appropriate vehicle for most inter partes trademark disputes. Court litigation (before the Belgian Enterprise Courts, the Unified Patent Court in its trademark-adjacent proceedings, or via cross-border injunctions) is reserved for cases involving active market infringement, significant commercial harm, or parties that cannot be reached through administrative channels.
Co-existence agreements are an underused tool that deserves mention. Where two parties hold rights in similar marks for genuinely different goods or services, a co-existence agreement can provide legal certainty for both parties, define territorial boundaries, and avoid the cost and uncertainty of protracted proceedings. We negotiate co-existence agreements as part of an overall enforcement strategy, particularly where opposition or invalidity proceedings would be costly relative to the commercial stakes.
Consistent failure to enforce against confusingly similar marks can contribute to a finding of acquiescence, which under Article 61 EUTMR may prevent you from seeking to have a later mark declared invalid, even if it would otherwise be confusingly similar to yours. Beyond the legal risk, non-enforcement encourages further infringement and weakens the commercial value of the portfolio. An enforcement programme does not require action against every instance of similarity, but it does require documented, consistent decisions about when and why to act or not act.
A cease and desist letter is a formal communication from a trademark owner (or their legal counsel) to an alleged infringer, asserting the trademark rights and demanding cessation of the infringing activity within a specified deadline. It establishes a record of notice relevant to damages in later proceedings. In practice, a significant proportion of trademark disputes are resolved at the cease and desist stage, particularly where the infringer is acting without awareness of the earlier mark or where the commercial exposure of continued infringement is clear. The letter should be drafted with care: an overstated claim can undermine credibility, while an understated one may not create sufficient urgency.
Opposition proceedings are filed during the publication period of a new trademark application (typically three months from publication at EUIPO and BOIP) before the mark has registered. Invalidity proceedings are filed after a mark has already registered, seeking its cancellation. Opposition is faster, cheaper, and preferred where a conflict is identified early. Invalidity is the appropriate route where a conflicting mark has already obtained registration and is being used in a way that creates confusion. Both proceedings are decided by the relevant IP office, not by courts, and appeal lies to the designated appeal bodies and ultimately to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Court proceedings become necessary where the infringing party is actively using a mark in the market in a way that causes ongoing commercial harm, where urgent interim relief is needed to stop infringing activity before a full hearing, or where administrative proceedings are insufficient to address the full scope of the infringement. Belgian courts have jurisdiction over cross-border infringements where the defendant is domiciled in Belgium or where the infringing activity has effects here. We assess the cost-benefit of litigation honestly: courts are a last resort, not a default, and the decision to litigate should be taken with a clear view of the likely outcome and the costs of getting there.
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=small}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
