Romanian courts have sharpened their approach to intellectual property disputes over the past twelve months. Rights holders who rely on registrations obtained years ago – without monitoring or enforcement activity – are finding those rights challenged more aggressively than before.
Romanian intellectual property legislation and court practice have shifted to place greater scrutiny on the genuine use of registered marks and the procedural diligence of rights holders pursuing infringement claims. Oficiul de Stat pentru Invenții și Mărci (OSIM – the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks) has updated its administrative guidance on opposition proceedings, and the Bucharest courts have aligned their evidentiary standards accordingly. International businesses with IP registrations in Romania now face a stricter compliance environment, with review of existing portfolios recommended before the end of the current quarter.
This alert covers what has changed, which business categories are most exposed, and the immediate actions required to protect your position in Romania.
What has changed in Romanian IP enforcement
Romanian IP enforcement has developed along two parallel lines: administrative tightening at OSIM and doctrinal shifts in civil court practice.
At the administrative level, OSIM has clarified the evidentiary threshold for opposition proceedings against trademark applications. Opponents must now submit substantive proof of genuine use at the time of filing the opposition – not merely at a later procedural stage. This is a material change. Previously, opponents could rely on the registration certificate alone to initiate proceedings and produce use evidence later. That latitude has narrowed significantly.
On the judicial side, the Tribunalul București (Bucharest Tribunal) and the Curtea de Apel București (Bucharest Court of Appeal) have adopted a consistent position in recent infringement cases. Courts now examine whether the claimant has taken timely steps to police its rights. Delays in filing an infringement claim – particularly where the claimant had demonstrable awareness of the infringing activity – are being used to reduce or deny injunctive relief. Practitioners in Romania note that a delay of more than six months between awareness and filing carries meaningful procedural risk.
Additionally, courts have tightened their scrutiny of Nice classification (the international system for classifying goods and services in trademark applications) scope. Rights holders whose registrations use broad class headings – rather than specific goods and services – face challenges from defendants arguing that the registration does not extend to the contested products. This mirrors a trend seen across the EU, but Romanian courts have applied it with particular rigour in the past year.
For businesses with AI-driven products and technology services entering the Romanian market, the classification issue is especially acute. Software and algorithm-related goods frequently fall across multiple Nice classes, and incomplete coverage creates enforcement gaps that competitors are now actively exploiting.
Who is affected and which thresholds trigger risk
The developments above affect a broad range of international businesses. However, the exposure is not uniform.
High-exposure category: brand owners with dormant Romanian registrations. Any company that registered a trademark in Romania more than three years ago. and has not used or enforced it locally since. faces a material non-use cancellation risk. Romanian IP legislation permits any third party to seek cancellation of a mark that has not been genuinely used within a continuous five-year period. Courts are now receptive to such applications, particularly where the registered owner has also failed to pursue known infringers.
Medium-exposure category: companies relying on EU trade mark (EUTM) protection without a national filing. EUTM coverage extends to Romania as an EU member state. However, EUTM holders who have not established local use evidence in Romania specifically may struggle to satisfy Romanian courts on the genuine use standard in opposition or infringement proceedings.
Affected threshold – opposition proceedings: Any pending trademark application filed at OSIM or via the Madrid System designating Romania is now subject to the stricter opposition evidentiary standard immediately. There is no transitional period for ongoing oppositions. Rights holders with oppositions currently in progress should audit their evidence files without delay.
Affected threshold – infringement claims: The practical deadline before the risk of delay-based defences arises is approximately six months from confirmed awareness of infringement. Once internal communications document knowledge of the infringing activity, that clock starts. Companies that have conducted internal brand monitoring without following up with legal action should treat this as an urgent compliance trigger.
To receive an expert assessment of your IP portfolio's exposure in Romania, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Immediate actions for international companies
Rights holders operating in Romania should address the following items before the end of the current quarter.
- Audit existing Romanian and EUTM registrations for genuine use evidence. Identify any mark that has not been used in Romania within the past three years and assess whether use can be established or the registration should be updated.
- Review Nice classification coverage on all active registrations. Where broad class headings were used, consider whether a supplementary filing with specific goods and services descriptions is warranted to close enforcement gaps.
- Assess pending opposition proceedings at OSIM. If you are an opponent, confirm that substantive use evidence has already been submitted – do not rely on the possibility of filing it at a later stage.
- Establish a Romania-specific monitoring programme for trademark applications and marketplace infringement activity. Any evidence of awareness without corresponding action creates procedural risk under the current court approach.
- Review any known infringement situations where action has not yet been filed. If internal records document awareness dating back more than six months, legal action should be assessed promptly to avoid delay-based defences.
Businesses with existing IP registration programmes in Romania should also review our analysis of intellectual property law in Romania for a fuller account of registration procedures and enforcement instruments available under Romanian intellectual property legislation.
For companies monitoring parallel developments in other Iberian and Atlantic markets, our alert on IP enforcement developments in Portugal covers comparable shifts in that jurisdiction.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our intellectual property practice supports international companies on trademark application strategy, opposition proceedings, infringement claims, and IP registration portfolio management across European and global markets. The firm's IP team includes practitioners with experience before OSIM and the Romanian courts, as well as before the EUIPO and WIPO for cross-border matters. We combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver clear, cross-border IP strategies for technology companies, brand owners, and institutional investors. Engaging a lawyer in Romania with cross-border IP experience is critical when court practice shifts as rapidly as it has in the past year – our team is available to advise on your position. As an international law firm covering Romania and the wider CEE region, Ferraz & Whitmore provides direct support on both administrative and judicial enforcement strategies. To discuss how these developments affect your IP portfolio in Romania, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Author: Sophie Kellner | Partner, IP & Technology Law | Published: March 01, 2026