It has improved but there is still some tensions. I believe that one of the problems is that the member states overall send national office staff as their representatives to discussions both in Brussels, Geneva, Munich and Alicante. You could say that this results in an almost in-built conflict of interest. If you fear a drop of filing of trademark, design and patent application in your own office as a consequence of the success of the CTM, the RCD and a Community Patent, then it takes a real effort to rise above it.

Some manage to do this easily, of course, but others express heartfelt concern about who will protect and promote innovation in their country if the national office runs out of business one day.

As an example, about two years ago the Council of Ministers instructed the Commission to present a proposal for a reduction of the CTM fees. Clearly something were holding back the Commission from making a proposal, and I believe that the problem was that member states were reluctant to see the fees go down too much. At the same time users were very keen to see the fees go down, but began to object strongly to any transfer of funds from Alicante to national offices. In my opinion there has been lack of proper communication between the interested parties, and I don’t wish to point fingers at anyone in particular because it really was a combination of many things at different points in time.

The compromise solution of September 2008 takes into account a number of changes and actions. First, there is a proposed reduction of the CTM application and registration to about €1000 in total. Second, there is the setting up of a reserve fund for the OHIM of €190 million. Third, a so-called cooperation fund of €50 million is proposed to be created to which the national offices can make application. This fund will run until the fourth element comes into play, which is the transfer of 50% of the CTM renewal fees to national offices. Lastly it is said that the remaining surplus in Alicante should be used in consultation with users.

Certain points in the compromise are difficult to swallow for the users. The cooperation fund is accepted on the basis that the solution paper makes it clear that the users will be involved in the fund itself, and users are perfectly able to see that many good initiatives and projects can be run using the available funds.

The thorny point in the compromise is the 50% of the renewal fees. This is a perpetual thing that risks moving beyond any wishes users might have as regards transparency. This should not be understood as lack of trust and confidence in the national offices, but it is based on the simple fact that in a number of countries offices are run on State budgets, and the CTM renewal money should be used to improve offices and other IP related initiatives instead of ending up in State coffers.

I know that it might sound naive and simple, but we do need to improve communication. We need to show that we have not only mouths, but also ears! I don’t want anyone to take offence at this, because I feel that is is something we all need to keep in mind.

As much as I am in principle against any transfer of funds if it is not “payment for services rendered”, I am not blind to the fact that we have an absolutely unique opportunity to do a lot of good for all businesses with an interest in IP in Europe. Everyone would benefit if all offices in Europe had electronic databases available for free internet searching and if offices had sufficient resources to seriously promote innovation and IP. We could develop ideas like these into concrete initiatives with proper funding and turn them into reality.

I am thrilled at the thought, but we need people of vision to come together for a project like this to come true. If we work together, we could begin by working on removing the first serious obstacle, namely the fact that many offices are not financially independent. We need to fix this as it will get in the way of running funded projects in those particular countries.