Shortly before the 7th (extraordinary) meeting of the OAMI Trade Mark Group on 8th April 2002, the Office in Alicante circulated its proposals for reform and improvement of the Community Trade Mark system. The proposals were discussed at the meeting, although representatives of several organisations emphasised that, due to the short time for preparation, they were expressing personal views.

Written comments were submitted by FICPI after the meeting. The main contentious issues were as follows:

1. Restitutio (reinstatement) into priority time limit.
   The Office proposed reinstatement in respect of a missed priority date, as in the Patent Law Treaty. We agreed, but asked for a broader discussion about the standard of "all due care" for reinstatement in general, in particular a change to the standard that "any delay was unintentional".
   
   
2. Further processing.
   We strongly supported introduction of a system of further processing, as in Art. 121 of the European Patent Convention. We opposed the suggested time limit of 1 month.
   
   
3. Revocation of obviously erroneous decisions.
   The proposal was generally welcomed but there was much discussion about a time limit after which a decision or entry could not be changed. The European Commission thought the proposal quite delicate and innovative, and mentioned possible conflict with the principle of legal certainty.
   
   
4. Abolition of mandatory presentation of authorisations.
   FICPI, along with representatives of ECTA and AIPPI, argued for retention of the present system of authorizations, which had worked well. Comparison with the EPO was not appropriate because of the EPI and its Code of Conduct. Other professional organisations favoured dropping the requirement for filing an authorisation, as in the Community Design Regulation. FICPI urged that this should be deferred for discussion at the same time as revision of Article 89 CTMR, as part of an upgrading of the standards of qualification for professional representatives and establishment of a mechanism for setting a Code of Conduct.
   
   
5. Streamlining of the conversion procedure.
   This proposal was seen as arising because the Office had not been sending out conversion notifications, which the Office wished to abolish and NGOs wanted to retain. On the other hand we agreed that the Office could take initial decisions on admissibility of conversion applications.
   
   
6. Filing via national offices.
   We supported extension of the time limit to two months for an application to reach Alicante. We asked that the national office should be required to notify the applicant when it forwards the application to OHIM.v
7. Facilitate submission of priority documents by removing the requirement that they should be in one of the languages of the Office.
   We objected, in the interest of third parties.
   
   
8. Inspection of files for all applications.
   We agreed to limited inspection.
   
   Numerous other issues were considered and, in general, agreed to be acceptable. In addition, FICPI put forward two other proposals:
   
   
9. Examination of Oppositions.
   We proposed that an opponent should be required to substantiate a ground of opposition based on use/reputation at an early stage of the proceedings, and asked for preliminary decisions on "proof of use".
   
   
10. Simultaneous and successive civil actions on the basis of CTMs and national trade marks.
    We requested amendment of Art. 105 CTMR, so that it would not preclude an action based on a later right, at least in a different country from that of the first attempted enforcement. The Office took the view that this merited some reflection although it was unlikely to be solved by writing a specific rule.

A proposal from the European Commission for revision of the CTM Regulation is awaited.