EUIPO Mediation Centre: How the EU Intellectual Property Office Created a Free Mediation Service for Businesses from 130 Countries

If one were to compare mediation institutions to living organisms, the EUIPO Mediation Centre is the youngest of all those I have written about in this series of articles. CEDR was founded in 1990, the ICC International Centre for ADR in 1923, and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in 1994. The EUIPO Mediation Centre was officially launched on November 22, 2023 — meaning that at the time of writing, the organization is not yet three years old. And it is precisely for this reason that its history interests me no less than the century-old institutions: it shows how, in the 2020s, those who are building mediation from scratch — unburdened by decades of entrenched habits — think about the subject.

But before speaking of the Centre itself, it is worth saying a few words about the organization that created it. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is an EU agency based in Alicante, Spain, responsible for the registration of trademarks and designs at the level of the entire Union. Each year, EUIPO registers more than 170,000 EU trademarks (EUTM) and more than 100,000 registered EU designs (REUD) — a scale that in itself generates an enormous number of disputes between holders of similar or competing rights. A telling detail from the speech delivered by EUIPO Executive Director João Negrão at the Centre’s opening: 42% of all EU trademark applications are filed by companies outside the EU — meaning that more than one in two applications comes from non-residents, for whom litigating in the courts of one of the 27 EU Member States is not merely costly but also fundamentally complex from a jurisdictional standpoint. It was precisely this fact that became one of the key arguments in favor of establishing a dedicated mediation centre.

It is worth making the scale of these figures more concrete. Each year, EUIPO receives applications from companies in approximately 130 countries around the world. This means that the EU trademark registration system is de facto a global service — and any dispute arising between a trademark holder from Japan and the holder of a similar mark from Brazil within the EUIPO register falls into a jurisdictional vacuum: neither party has a natural “home” court for hearing such a conflict. In this context, mediation is not a trend or a fine idea — it is a response to a real structural problem.

Background: ten years before the official launch

The formal opening in November 2023 might create the impression that this concerns an entirely new idea. In reality, however, EUIPO has a considerably longer mediation history, which is important to understand for the proper context.

As early as 2012, the EUIPO Boards of Appeal were providing mediation and conciliation services within the framework of their proceedings. This means that mediation at EUIPO effectively existed for more than ten years before the official opening of the Centre — simply in an embedded, non-separate format, as one of the tools of the Boards of Appeal. Over that time, real practical experience accumulated, methodologies were developed, and an understanding emerged of which types of disputes lend themselves best to mediation in the context of IP rights registered at EUIPO. It was on this foundation that the full-fledged Mediation Centre of 2023 was built — not as an experiment from scratch, but as the institutionalization of an already tested approach.

The legal basis for establishing the Centre is enshrined directly in the EU Trademark Regulation: EU Regulation 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark expressly mandates the Office to establish a Mediation Centre for the resolution of disputes concerning EU trademarks, EU designs, and geographical indications for craft and industrial products. This means the Centre is not the initiative of an individual manager or a temporary program, but a structural element expressly provided for by primary EU legislation.

This is an important distinction from most mediation institutions, which emerged as private or non-profit initiatives and only subsequently received legislative recognition. The EUIPO Mediation Centre was born in the reverse order: first a legislative obligation — then implementation. This affords the Centre a special status: it cannot be liquidated or “frozen” by a decision of the Office, since its existence is enshrined at the level of the regulation.

The new Mediation Rules of 2025: the next level

If the opening of the Centre in 2023 was the first major step, then on July 14, 2025, EUIPO took the second — and no less significant one. A new version of the mediation rules was published, substantially expanding both the Centre’s scope of competence and the logic of its operations.

The most important expansion concerns subject-matter jurisdiction. Under the new rules, the EUIPO Mediation Centre may now administer mediations not only in respect of EU trademarks and EU designs, but also in respect of any parallel proceedings between the same parties in any jurisdiction, as well as disputes concerning any other IP rights — copyright, geographical indications, domain names, patents, and even standard-essential patents (SEPs) — provided they are connected to a dispute concerning an EUTM or an EUD. This represents a fundamentally new logic: the Centre ceases to be a purely “internal” EUIPO service and becomes a platform for the comprehensive resolution of IP conflicts, even where they extend well beyond the boundaries of the Office’s register.

Another important detail that has emerged from the Centre’s practical experience: mediations at EUIPO predominantly consolidate several related cases between the same parties — with an average of one mediation per three proceedings. This means that the mechanism is de facto used not to resolve a single dispute but to address an entire “cluster” of conflicting relationships between two parties simultaneously — which is considerably more efficient than examining each case separately in sequence.

The launch and first steps: from the second instance to all proceedings

The Centre was launched in 2023 on the basis of Articles 170 and 151(3) of EU Regulation 2017/1001 on the EU trade mark. Initially, the EUIPO Mediation Centre provided ADR services only to parties involved in inter partes proceedings pending before the EUIPO Boards of Appeal — that is, at the second instance, in appeal proceedings concerning decisions of the Opposition Division.

This is an important detail of the launch architecture: the Centre deliberately began with the second instance — with more complex, mature disputes, where the parties had already been through the first procedure and had consciously chosen to appeal. Such parties generally have a better understanding of their positions and the real risks of litigation — and are therefore more inclined to seek a compromise. This was a considered start: not attempting to cover everyone at once, but working out the model with the most prepared audience.

The next step was a gradual expansion to the first instance, primarily for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Throughout 2024 and 2025, the Centre developed to give all users access to ADR for first-instance proceedings. Initially, SMEs could submit requests for support in this area, after which it became available to all.

From June 2, 2025, following amendments to the Articles governing the establishment and operation of the Mediation Centre, its services were extended to all parties involved in any inter partes proceedings before EUIPO — whether first or second instance — proceedings concerning opposition or cancellation of an EUTM or invalidity of an REUD.

In less than two years from its launch, the Centre had thus traveled from a narrow service for appellate cases to a full-scale system accessible at any stage of any inter partes proceeding. This is not ordinary “gradual expansion” — it is a systemic evolution carried out within a very compressed timeframe.

What and for whom: the full spectrum of services

The services of the Mediation Centre include mediation, conciliation, and expert determination. These services are provided by a team of experienced mediators and case managers who speak various languages to facilitate mediation and negotiation processes.

Let us examine each of the three instruments separately.

Mediation is a voluntary and confidential procedure in which a mediator helps the parties find a mutually acceptable solution without imposing one. The parties retain full control over the process and the outcome: no agreement can be imposed on them from the outside. The mediator is neutral and impartial — they do not give legal advice, do not propose ready-made solutions, and do not represent either party. The process includes both joint sessions with all parties and separate private meetings between the mediator and each party (caucuses). All information disclosed in the private meetings remains confidential and is not passed to the other party without explicit consent.

Conciliation is somewhat different in format: here a neutral third party not only facilitates dialogue but may also propose specific solution options, though again without the power to bind the parties to anything. This is an intermediate format between mediation and expert determination. One feature specific to EUIPO that is worth noting: the conciliator is always the rapporteur — the person responsible for the case before the Boards of Appeal. The rapporteur continues to perform this role even if the conciliation procedure does not lead to a settlement. By agreeing to conciliation, the parties agree in advance not to challenge the involvement of that person in any subsequent decisions concerning their dispute.

Expert determination is a procedure in which an independent expert in a particular technical or legal field determines facts or renders an assessment. Under EUIPO rules, this is a service provided in the context of mediation — that is, where the parties are already in a mediation process but have encountered a specific technical or legal question that requires an external expert opinion in order to move forward. The expert may be either a member of EUIPO staff or an external specialist — the essential requirement is that they act independently and impartially. The outcome may be either advisory or binding, depending on what the parties have agreed.

An important detail that distinguishes EUIPO from all the institutions we have examined: the dispute must concern EU trademarks and/or EU designs. The Centre provides services only in respect of IP rights registered at EUIPO. However, the parties may include in the mediation other IP rights (such as copyright, domain names, and patents) or any other related disputes between them.

The Centre’s primary jurisdiction is thus strictly limited to EU trademarks and designs, but by mutual agreement the parties may “expand” the subject matter of the mediation to cover related issues — a flexible provision that allows the entire complex of interconnected disputes to be resolved in a single process.

The main advantage: free of charge

This is probably the most striking and unusual feature of the EUIPO Mediation Centre compared to all other institutions. Mediation conducted online or at EUIPO’s headquarters in Alicante, Spain, is free of charge. If mediation takes place at EUIPO’s premises in Brussels, a one-time fee of €1,200 is charged — shared equally between the parties — to cover the travel and accommodation costs of the EUIPO mediator.

Compare this with what we already know: the average cost of a mediation proceeding at the WIPO Center was approximately $26,000 in 2021; at the ICC, the mediation procedure begins with a non-refundable filing fee of $3,000 just to initiate consideration of an application. EUIPO offers the same service free of charge — and this is a deliberate strategic position, not merely a gesture of goodwill. When parties choose EUIPO’s ADR services to resolve their disputes, they pay no additional EUIPO fees beyond those already paid in the context of the relevant inter partes proceeding.

The logic here is clear: EUIPO is a regulatory agency of the EU, not a commercial entity. Its task is not to profit from mediation but to make the system of IP rights management in the EU more efficient and less expensive for all market participants — and in particular for SMEs, for whom litigation in several jurisdictions can prove economically devastating. Free mediation is an investment in the system, not charity.

It is worth being candid, however, about one structural limitation that is directly connected to the free-of-charge model. The EUIPO mediator roster is a closed list, currently comprising 51 mediators, all of whom are EUIPO staff members. EU Regulation 2017/1001 formally permits the inclusion of external qualified mediators on the list, but the Centre has not yet availed itself of this possibility: engaging an external mediator would require either additional payment by the parties or corresponding budget expenditure by the Office. Although the standard fees for EUIPO proceedings are relatively modest (from €320 for an opposition to €800 for a design invalidity action), where several parallel proceedings exist between the same parties these amounts can multiply — and in such cases even a modest fee for an external mediator could theoretically fit within the overall cost. This is an open question that the Centre will still need to address.

The mediator as a staff member: independence and its limits

The closed nature of the mediator roster also gives rise to a more fundamental question: to what extent can the independence of a mediator be guaranteed when they are a full-time employee of the very Office whose decisions are the subject of the dispute?

EUIPO is aware of this problem and seeks to address it constructively. Articles 170(13) and 170(14) of the Regulation expressly prohibit EUIPO mediators from participating in mediation concerning a case in which they were already involved as a decision-maker — and conversely, from making decisions in cases in which they participated as mediator. The legislature thus attempts to separate the roles of “judge” and “mediator” at the level of specific individuals.

A more subtle question remains, however: can the content of a mediation remain strictly confidential when the mediator is a person who forms part of a system that is examining related cases? For some market participants, this concern is material. As analysts at the Kluwer Mediation Blog note, parties for whom confidentiality is of paramount importance may consider an alternative: conducting the mediation through an external institution (such as WIPO or CEDR), while simultaneously filing a joint request to suspend the EUIPO proceedings on the basis of Article 71 of the Delegated Regulation. This is technically more complex, but it affords maximum control over the confidentiality of the process.

The settlement agreement: practical details

If mediation concludes successfully, the parties sign a settlement agreement — but it is important to understand exactly how this works in the EUIPO context.

The agreement must be concluded in writing, dated, and signed by the parties or their authorized representatives. It remains strictly confidential and is not transmitted to the Mediation Centre — unless the parties themselves jointly decide to deposit it there. If depositing does occur, the EUIPO repository may, at the request of the parties, confirm in writing the fact that the agreement has been signed and that a mediation proceeding took place. This is a practically useful function for situations where disputes later arise as to whether an agreement was in fact reached.

The settlement agreement is not self-executing — that is, its signing does not automatically give rise to changes in the EUIPO register. The parties are themselves responsible for implementing the terms of the agreement: for example, by filing requests for changes to registration data, limitations, or cancellation of rights. Two months are allotted for this purpose following the conclusion of the mediation. If the mediation produces no result, the proceeding resumes from the point at which it was suspended.

One important nuance highlighted by practitioners: the mediation process at EUIPO does not absorb the “cooling-off” period provided for in opposition proceedings. This independent negotiating interval (from two to 24 months) is preserved and continues to run in parallel. If mediation fails, it may resume — and the parties will once again have time for direct negotiations. Some practitioners consider this a constructive reserve; others caution that such a “double pause” may open the door to abuse. A practical recommendation that has gained currency among lawyers: to include in the mediation agreement an explicit waiver of the cooling-off period, so as to avoid artificial delay.

What the procedure looks like

Mediation is possible when an inter partes proceeding (for example, an opposition, invalidity, or cancellation action) is pending before EUIPO, both parties agree, and the adversarial phase of the procedure has already commenced. Specifically: for oppositions — after the conclusion of the “cooling-off” period; for trademark cancellation actions — after the relevant application has been filed; for design invalidity actions — also after the application has been filed; for appeals — after the notice of appeal has been filed.

Initiation occurs through a written request by one of the parties or at the suggestion of EUIPO. Once both parties give their consent, the current proceeding is automatically suspended for the duration of the mediation — without any additional requests. Time limits are also suspended from the date of the joint request for mediation.

An important point: where several related cases exist between the same parties, all their references must be clearly indicated by both parties in their official communications — only clearly specified cases will be suspended. Any parallel proceedings before national or regional authorities must be suspended by the parties independently by approaching the relevant bodies.

The procedure provides for three official methods of initiating mediation: a unilateral request (one party initiates, EUIPO notifies the other and awaits its consent), a joint request (both parties apply simultaneously), and a proposal by the rapporteur or examiner (the person responsible for the case may propose mediation, but cannot impose it — only recommend it).

The procedure has five clearly defined phases.

Phase 1 — Request. One of the parties already involved in a proceeding before EUIPO may submit a request for mediation. The Mediation Centre’s case management team checks the admissibility of the request and contacts the other party or parties to inform them of the request and confirm whether they agree to commence mediation.

Phase 2 — Preparation. The parties jointly select a mediator from the official list, with the Mediation Centre able to provide recommendations regarding language skills, subject-matter expertise, and the availability of specialists. Mediation is conducted via EUIPO’s secure platform with clear deadlines and structured processes. At this stage, the names of the authorized participants and representatives of each party, the schedule of meetings, and the venue are also agreed. In advance of the first session, the mediator may ask the parties to submit a brief description of the case and their positions — so as to be better prepared.

Phase 3 — Exploration. The exploration phase consists of a series of meetings during which the mediator may alternate between private sessions with each party separately and joint sessions with both parties. Information disclosed in the private meetings is not revealed to the other party without the consent of the party that provided it. At the opening of each session, the parties generally make an opening statement summarizing their position, after which the mediator helps draw up a list of issues for discussion.

Phase 4 — Negotiation. Negotiation and bargaining begin once the parties are ready to move from general ideas to specific settlement terms. At this stage, the key elements of a possible agreement are identified. It is critically important that representatives with genuine authority to conclude an agreement are present at the negotiations — not only lawyers, but also individuals capable of making business decisions on behalf of the company. Mediation is not solely about rights but also about business interests, and the decisions taken must therefore be backed by real authority on both sides.

Phase 5 — Outcome. If a settlement agreement is reached: the agreement must satisfy both parties and be mutually acceptable and sustainable. The settlement agreement is drafted and signed by the parties. If no agreement is reached: in that case, the parties may choose another ADR process or return to the main proceeding before EUIPO or a court. Regardless of the outcome, the mediator is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of everything that took place during the process and never participates in subsequent decisions concerning that case.

As regards timeframes: the pace is determined by the parties themselves, and the process generally takes less time than litigation. The smoothness and efficiency of the process depend on the participants and may therefore last anywhere from one day to several months.

Where and in which language

Geographic and linguistic flexibility is another carefully considered feature of the Centre. The Mediation Centre provides services via an online platform. However, in addition to virtual interaction, meeting space is available at EUIPO’s headquarters in Alicante or, for an additional fee, in Brussels. The mediation rooms at headquarters are equipped for a hybrid format — meaning one party can be physically present while the other connects remotely.

Services were initially provided in five languages: English, French, Spanish, German, and Italian. However, the list is gradually expanding as mediators proficient in other EU languages are added to the roster. EUIPO’s principle is that mediation is conducted by default in the language of the proceeding — but the parties are free to agree on a different language if that is more convenient for both and a suitable mediator is available. The team of mediators and case managers is multilingual in composition — a matter of principle for an organization serving applicants from all 27 EU Member States plus more than 42% of non-European companies. The online platform provides a secure and confidential environment for interaction — an important detail in an era when most business negotiations have long since moved into digital format.

When mediation is appropriate: ten situations

EUIPO does not content itself with simply offering a service — the Office has developed a concrete reference point for parties who are uncertain: a list of ten situations in which an IP dispute is most likely suitable for mediation. It merits attention, because it reflects not abstract theory but practical understanding accumulated over years of real work.

Mediation is most appropriate when: the dispute is still at an early stage; the case is complex or spans several jurisdictions; a court decision will be difficult to enforce; the parties already have or may develop parallel IP rights over a similar object; a tailored approach is required for resolution; the parties are in or plan to enter into business relations; confidentiality is a priority; the company’s reputation may be harmed by a public hearing; a language barrier exists between the parties; and finally — when speed of resolution is important.

This list is not a marketing device. It is a map of situations in which voluntary settlement systematically outperforms an administrative decision. And EUIPO, having developed this reference point from its own experience, is effectively teaching its users to think in terms of ADR — which in itself represents a significant cultural shift in an environment where IP disputes were traditionally viewed exclusively through the lens of oppositions and court proceedings.

How EUIPO differs from all its predecessors

Having examined CEDR, ICC, and WIPO, I described each institution as unique in its own way — and the EUIPO Mediation Centre similarly occupies an entirely special place in this series, one that does not overlap with any of its predecessors.

CEDR is a British institution that grew out of a campaign for civil justice reform and systematically influenced English procedural law through case law. The ICC ADR Centre is the most generalist player, with no attachment to any particular industry or jurisdiction, offering the broadest spectrum from mediation to arbitration. The WIPO Center has narrow subject-matter specialization in intellectual property but global reach and its own mass domain name dispute system.

The EUIPO Mediation Centre is something new on this landscape: a regulatory agency providing mediation within the framework of its own administrative proceedings. There are no external commercial clients in the conventional sense — there are participants in proceedings who have already approached the Office for the protection of their rights, and to whom the Office now also offers conciliation as an alternative to an imposed decision. This is not competition with WIPO or ICC — it is a fundamentally different link in the system, filling a niche that neither WIPO nor ICC could fill by definition: disputes between parties who are already engaged in proceedings for the registration, opposition, or cancellation of EU rights.

EUIPO’s Head of Communications Julio Laporta notes that the sphere of competence of the EUIPO Mediation Centre differs from that of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, as do the types of services each organization provides. But they will continue to explore opportunities for cooperation — together with other ADR centres.

I would add a more systemic perspective: the model being implemented by EUIPO has the potential to become a template for other specialized regulatory agencies that manage large rights registers. If a registration office can simultaneously offer free mediation to the holders of those rights, this substantially reduces the overall social cost of resolving conflicts in the relevant field. The logic can be transferred to the registration of patents, geographical indications, other IP objects — and not only within the EU.

The most important context: why now

The launch of the EUIPO Mediation Centre in 2023 is not an isolated event, but part of a broader trend that I have observed throughout this entire series of articles: mediation is transforming from an “alternative” into a systemic element of commercial dispute resolution. CEDR achieved this in Britain through case law. ICC achieved it through a universal contractual instrument for cross-border agreements. WIPO achieved it through a mass automated domain name dispute procedure. EUIPO achieved it through an embedded free-of-charge service within its own administrative proceedings.

Each of these institutions found its own point of entry into a system in which mediation becomes not the exception but the norm. And EUIPO, despite being the youngest of all those examined, has perhaps taken the most radical step in this direction: it simply made mediation free — not in order to compete with commercial providers, but to remove any financial barriers between rights holders and the possibility of an amicable settlement. At the same time, it has been candid about its limitations: the closed model of staff mediators, questions of confidentiality, open-ended discussions about the rules — all of this points to a living, not a decorative, institution that is still taking shape.