Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 MAY 2026

LD Brussels, April 27, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_871/2026

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court examined an application to change the language of proceedings in a patent dispute between Dutch companies. The decision explores how factors such as party size, domicile, and technological context influence language selection, even when the patent's original language is commonly used in the relevant technical field.

BelgiumIntellectual Property
Ann-Kathrin Michel
Ann-Kathrin Michel
Author LinkedIn connections

1. Key takeaways

Unsolicited submissions in a language change application are generally inadmissible to ensure a rapid decision (headline 1)

A rapid decision on a language-change request benefits both parties and case management. Submissions not foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP and filed without prior authorisation are inadmissible and will be disregarded.

A language-change application under Art. 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP may be filed before the Statement of Defence; R. 19.2(a) RoP service formalities do not apply

Art. 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change application to be included in the Statement of Defence. R. 323.3 RoP must be interpreted to allow earlier filing, ensuring any language change is implemented as soon as possible.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

No Free Rides On Reputed Marks: The CJEU’s Balancing Act Between Trademark Rights And Political Expression In Inter IKEA Systems v Vlaams Belang

The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered a landmark ruling on whether political parties may invoke freedom of expression to justify using reputed trademarks in their campaigns. When Belgian political party Vlaams Belang adopted the IKEA trademark for its immigration reform programme, Inter IKEA Systems challenged the use, forcing European courts to balance intellectual property rights against fundamental freedoms. The judgment establishes a nuanced framework requiring case-by-case assessment
BelgiumIntellectual Property
Mamo TCV Advocates
Mamo TCV Advocates
Article

CJEU Establishes Framework For Balancing Trademark Rights And Freedom Of Expression

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on whether political expression and parody can justify the unauthorized use of a reputed trademark, examining the balance between intellectual property rights and freedom of speech. The case arose from a Belgian political party's immigration campaign that adopted IKEA's branding without permission, prompting Inter IKEA to bring infringement proceedings.
European UnionIntellectual Property
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

Screws Loose? The CJEU Weighs In On A Trade Mark Parody Gone Political

The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered a landmark judgment addressing whether political parody and freedom of expression can justify the unauthorized use of a famous trade mark. When Belgian political party Vlaams Belang appropriated IKEA's distinctive branding to promote its immigration reform programme, the resulting legal battle forced European courts to balance fundamental rights: the trade mark owner's property rights against the political actor's freedom of expression.
BelgiumIntellectual Property
ALTIUS
ALTIUS
Article

Political Parody Can Be A ‘due Cause’ Defense Against Trademark Dilution Claims

The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a landmark ruling on whether political parties can use reputable trademarks for parody or campaigning purposes under EU trademark law. The case examines a Belgian political party's IKEA-themed immigration campaign and establishes new criteria for balancing trademark rights against freedom of expression. National courts must now weigh multiple factors including intent, contribution to public debate, and potential brand damage when assessing such uses.
BelgiumIntellectual Property
Winston Taylor
Winston Taylor
Article

IKEA Bans Parody: Freedom Of Expression Must Yield To Trademark

When Belgian political party Vlaams Belang used IKEA's trademark and drawings in an anti-immigration campaign, it sparked a landmark EU court decision on the boundaries between political expression and trademark rights. The Court of Justice examined whether political parody provides "due cause" for using another's trademark, weighing freedom of expression against property rights in a case where the trademark owner maintained neutrality on the political message.
BelgiumIntellectual Property
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg