Article 37 — Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001
In brief
This article makes a consequential amendment to the EU trade mark Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. It adds a new point to the list of tasks in Article 151(1) of that Regulation, so that the tasks conferred by the European Innovation Act are formally included among the functions carried out under the EU trade mark framework. It also opens Chapter 4 of the Regulation, which sets out the final provisions.
Key points
- It amends Article 151(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 by inserting a new point (f).
- The new point covers the tasks entrusted under the European Innovation Act.
- It aligns the EU trade mark Regulation with the tasks created by this Regulation.
- A footnote reserves the space for the final title and Official Journal reference of the European Innovation Act.
What it means in practice
This is a technical, cross-cutting amendment rather than a new obligation on any addressee. It ensures that the body operating under the EU trade mark Regulation is competent to perform the additional tasks the European Innovation Act assigns to it. IP holders and their advisers may wish to note which functions are being added, as the detail depends on the tasks defined elsewhere in this Regulation.
Official text — Article 37 (COM(2026) 567)
Source: European Commission, proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Innovation Act, COM(2026) 567 final, 9 September 2026. Read the official proposal (PDF). Text may change during the legislative process.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
This is a small amendment with a telling institutional message. By slotting a new point (f) into Article 151(1) of the EU trade mark Regulation, the legislator entrusts additional tasks to the EU Intellectual Property Office rather than creating a fresh body. In my reading, that choice is deliberate: it anchors the Act’s IP-valuation and commercialisation ambitions in an institution that already runs registration, databases and cooperation with national offices, and that is financed largely by its own fees.
What I would watch is the resourcing and governance dimension. Expanding EUIPO’s mandate beyond registration towards a more active innovation role raises questions of budget, staffing and the scope of its expertise, and the co-legislators may well refine the wording as the file moves through Parliament and Council. Addressees should read this provision as a signal that EUIPO is set to become a central operational actor under the Act, not merely a registry.