ADVERTISEMENTS

OHIM is supposed to run on a balanced budget. Over the years, however, the surplus has continued to grow due to the popularity of the system [and because the fees were too high, adds Merpel]. In order to deal with this unhealthy surplus, OHIM's Administrative Board and Budget Committee decided way back in September 2008 to reduce the fees, to set up the Cooperation Fund to give away ?50 million and to dedicate 50% of the renewal fees for Community trade marks to the EU's national trade mark offices - something that user organisations have found hard to swallow since they don't see why, by opting for a Community trade mark, they should have to subsidise national systems.

However, there is one very important question which individual users have not yet been asked -- and which should be part of the study. What should be done with the remaining ?400 million which is not part of the ?50 million mentioned above and which is still sitting pretty in OHIM's bank accounts.

One proposal (put forward by OHIM itself) is to refund the surplus to previous applicants, who have after all been overcharged. Another idea is to transfer responsibility for the so-called Observatory [on which you can see the IPKat's comments here and here] to OHIM and spend the surplus through the Observatory's activities.

Some frustrated users are suggesting simply letting the money go back into the European Community coffers rather than having it spent on useless anti-counterfeiting campaigns and rather than risk it sneaking into Member States' coffers via national offices' budgets.

MARQUES is looking for answers from users themselves. What would you like to see done with this significant amount of money? Any idea is welcome. Please go to and post your answer here, or email it to the IPKat's friend and long-term inspiration Tove Grauland here.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.