Enforcement of EUIPO cost decisions – A practical guide

In the following, we will describe how enforcement works in practice, which authorities are responsible, and when enforcement is worthwhile.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Til Todorski, trainee lawyer, for his excellent support in preparing this article.

1. EUIPO cost decisions as enforceable titles

According to Art. 110 (1) EUTMR (Art. 71 (1) EUDR), all EUIPO decisions fixing costs are automatically enforceable titles in all EU member states. Separate recognition proceedings are not required. 

European trademark law therefore provides a direct power of enforcement which, in theory, should enable efficient cross-border enforcement.

It is important to understand that the EUIPO itself has no jurisdiction regarding enforcement. Its role ends with the fixing of costs; enforcement then falls to the national authorities of the Member States.

2. When is the title enforceable?

An EUIPO decision only becomes enforceable once it is final. As long as an application for review has been filed pursuant to Art. 109 (8) EUTMR or an appeal against the decision is pending, the fixing of costs does not become final. The creditor can only take action once these proceedings have been concluded.

The finality replaces all national recognition steps. The title is already enforceable “in itself” without a national court having to decide on its validity.

3. Application for enforcement order at the competent national authority

However, anyone wishing to enforce a decision must apply to the competent national authority for an order for the enforcement. Art. 110 (2) EUTMR (Art. 71 (2) EUDR) leaves it to the Member States to designate the competent national authority for this purpose. This authority solely confirms the authenticity of the decision—there is expressly no substantive review.

A complete list of the national authorities responsible for issuing the enforcement order pursuant to Art. 110 (2) EUTMR (Art. 71 (2) EUDR) can be found in Communication No. 1/23 of the Executive Director of the Office dated 9 June 2023 (available here). However, the EUIPO expressly points out that no guarantee is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information, so that verification in individual cases remains advisable.

Most Member States have designated a single authority, in accordance with the wording of the provision. Only Hungary deviates from this principle and specifies several (namely 20) courts that are authorized to issue enforcement orders.

In Germany, according to Sec. 125a of the Trademark Act (Sec. 64 of the Design Act), the responsible body for the enforcement order is the Federal Patent Court. The application for an enforcement clause must be accompanied by a copy of the original decision and confirmation of the finality of the decision by the EUIPO. Where necessary, the Court also asks for a translation of the rubrum and title as well as for a power of attorney (cf. BeckOK/Söder, MarkenR, 43rd edition, as of 1 July 2025, Art. 110 EUTMR, para. 8 with further references).

Since the status of proceedings before the EUIPO is publicly disclosed in the Office’s official database “eSearch plus”, it is generally sufficient to submit a screenshot showing that the proceedings have been concluded as proof of the finality of a decision. In the case of EUIPO decisions that were not issued in German, the Federal Patent Court generally accepts a machine translation provided that the translation is not obviously inconclusive.

4. Enforcement under national civil procedure law

Once the order has been issued, the creditor may proceed with enforcement. The practical implementation is governed by the respective national law of the state of enforcement. This includes, in particular:

• the competent enforcement court or bailiff,
• the permissible enforcement measures,
• the question of possible mandatory legal representation,
• the need for further translations,
• and the costs and duration of the enforcement proceedings.

This means that the enforcement proceedings are not harmonized across the EU, but can vary considerably from country to country. It is therefore highly advisable that creditors engage local lawyers.

5. No review in substance

The national authority may only review the authenticity of the EUIPO decision. A substantive review of the decision is not permitted. Incorrect or ambiguous decisions on costs must be challenged at the EUIPO itself – for example, via request for review under Art. 109 (8) EUTMR, via correction under Art. 102 EUTMR, or via revocation under Art. 103 EUTMR. National authorities are strictly bound by the decision and may not question either the amount of the costs or the reasons for them.

6. Cost-effectiveness: Is enforcement even worthwhile?

In practice, the question of economic efficiency often arises. The amounts involved are usually comparatively small. In case of a first instance opposition decision, the reimbursement of costs regularly only amounts to the opposition fee of EUR 320 and the representation costs of EUR 300 (Art. 18 (1) (c) EUTMIR). With the practice of hourly billing, which is widespread in intellectual property law, the enforceable claim can quickly be exceeded by the attorney's fees. For this reason, many creditors generally refrain from attempting to enforce their claims.

However, for debtors based in the Federal Republic of Germany, we recommend not to lightly waive enforcement measures. We have streamlined our internal processes so that even in cases involving rather small claims, the costs of enforcement do not exceed the enforceable amount.

We are, of course, happy to assist you with the enforcement of your claims. Please feel free to contact us.

‍