Home / Expertise / Intellectual Property
padlock hanging from turquoise painted wooden doors

Intellectual Property

Romania

In today’s knowledge economy, your intellectual property plays a key role in obtaining a competitive advantage. A cohesive strategy, including both commercialisation and enforcement, will ensure you get maximum value from your IP. With specialist IP lawyers throughout Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), we have worked with some of the best-known brands, from banks to tech and media companies, pharmaceuticals and FMCG companies, often across the region or in several jurisdictions.

Leading multinationals look to CMS for an integrated, cross-border service to meet their global needs and/or deal with global trademark portfolios, as well as specialist advice and representation in individual countries. Working with CMS gives you invaluable access to knowledge of the CEE markets and regulators, both locally and regionally. We work together with you to find the best solutions for your business.

CMS Romania has a dedicated team of IP specialists, which includes a number of registered trademark attorneys with both the Romanian Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). We advise our clients across the full range of contentious and non-contentious IP matters, including IP aspects of transactions in Romania, as well as on data protection and privacy.

The right brands will win the hearts and minds of your customers. The right patents will prevent others exploiting your ideas or provide a substantial barrier to market access. Copyright, know-how and designs also play a vital role. We focus on key sectors relevant to you such as life sciences and healthcare, automotive, machinery, manufacturing, consumer products, financial services, and technology, media and communications. This means you get in-depth industry knowledge as well as legal expertise for the protection of your IP. If you are involved in a dispute, CMS dedicated contentious IP experts can guide you through the litigation process.

Read more Read less

Feed

Show only
21 April 2021
Lego A/S v EUIPO: Lego re­tains design re­gis­tra­tion for its icon­ic Lego...
The Second Cham­ber of the Gen­er­al Court in Lego A/S v EUIPO (Case T-515/19) has an­nulled a de­cision of the EU In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty Of­fice (“EUIPO”) to de­clare in­val­id the design of a Lego brick...
23 March 2021
The En­larged Board of the European Pat­ent Of­fice has giv­en a mo­ment­ous...
The En­larged Board of the European Pat­ent Of­fice heard or­al ar­gu­ments in Ju­ly 2020 con­cern­ing pat­entab­il­ity of a com­puter soft­ware in­ven­tion.  This rare event was video streamed to over 1600 pat­ent stake­hold­ers...
05 March 2021
New EPO Guidelines on an­ti­body claims provide fur­ther clar­ity for ap­plic­ants
In­tro­duc­tion The EPO has now pub­lished their re­vised Guidelines for Ex­am­in­a­tion 2021[1] which con­tain new sec­tions de­tail­ing EPO prac­tice in re­la­tion to an­ti­bod­ies for the first time, en­ter­ing in­to force...
24 February 2021
COV­ID and ViCo: EPO re­fer­ral to the En­larged Board of Ap­peal
In the last year, the COV­ID-19 pan­dem­ic has res­ul­ted in a large pro­por­tion of the leg­al sec­tor trans­ition­ing to a ‘work from home’ ar­range­ment, with meet­ings tak­ing place re­motely. Non-es­sen­tial travel...
16 February 2021
Fight­ing poor med­ic­a­tion ad­her­ence in the European Uni­on: The Grav­it­ate-Health...
Nowadays, European cit­izens can ob­tain a great amount of in­form­a­tion (on­line and off­line) about any medi­cine. However, this in­form­a­tion is in many cases un­re­li­able and dif­fi­cult to un­der­stand, en­cour­aging...
12 February 2021
‘It’s like milk but made for hu­mans’: Gen­er­al Court over­turns EUIPO’s re­fus­al...
On 20 Janu­ary 2021, the Gen­er­al Court (“GC”) handed down its judg­ment in the ap­peal brought by Oatly AB (“Oatly”) against the de­cision of the EU In­tel­lec­tu­al Prop­erty Of­fice (“EUIPO”) to re­fuse...
11 February 2021
New EPO Guidelines now pub­lished re­gard­ing amend­ing the de­scrip­tion: what’s...
In­tro­duc­tion In Oc­to­ber 2020, CMS pub­lished an art­icle ‘New EPO Guidelines ex­pec­ted re­gard­ing amend­ing a de­scrip­tion: what’s all the fuss about?’, which has been the cata­lyst for dis­cus­sion in the...
15 December 2020
Five years after Hua­wei ZTE FRAND li­cens­ing ob­lig­a­tions again be­fore the...
On 26 Novem­ber 2020, the Düs­sel­dorf Re­gion­al Court an­nounced that it would sus­pend a pat­ent in­fringe­ment pro­ceed­ing and refer key ques­tions on com­puls­ory li­cens­ing of stand­ard es­sen­tial pat­ents (SEP)...
01 December 2020
EPO pri­or­ity claim en­ti­tle­ment – the “same ap­plic­ants” ap­proach up­held
In a Press Com­mu­niqué dated 6 Novem­ber 2020, the EPO sum­mar­ises the Tech­nic­al Board of Ap­peal 3.3.08 writ­ten de­cision re­cently is­sued in case T 844/18 con­firm­ing the re­voc­a­tion of a pat­ent re­lated to...
09 November 2020
CJEU rules that small sales of high-priced lux­ury sports cars and re­place­ment...
Back­ground Sev­er­al ques­tions were re­ferred fol­low­ing an ap­peal by the right­shold­er, Fer­rari, against the de­cision of the Ger­man court to or­der the re­voc­a­tion of two ‘TE­ST­AROSSA’ fig­ur­at­ive marks...
29 October 2020
EU Gen­er­al Court cla­ri­fies in­ter­pret­a­tion of “sat­is­fact­ory meth­od” in the...
In the re­cent case of Me­dac Gesell­schaft für klin­is­che Spezi­al­prä­par­ate mbH v European Com­mis­sion, the EU Gen­er­al Court has an­nulled a de­cision of the European Com­mis­sion in which it held that the ap­plic­ant’s...
28 October 2020
New EPO Guidelines ex­pec­ted re­gard­ing amend­ing a de­scrip­tion: what’s all...
Sum­mary The EPO re­quire­ment to amend the de­scrip­tion to con­form with al­lowed claims is chan­ging sig­ni­fic­antly. Ex­am­iners have already been giv­en in­tern­al guid­ance and re­vi­sions to the EPO Guidelines...