As of 27 April 2026, businesses seeking trade mark protection in Romania face a more structured assessment of signs that describe the subject matter of goods or services and of slogans with an allegedly promotional character. The Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) has implemented two further Common Practices developed within the European Union Intellectual Property Network: CP16 on signs describing the subject matter of goods or services, and CP17 on the distinctive character of slogans.

The change is not legislative. The absolute grounds for refusal under Romanian Trade Marks Law No. 84/1998 remain the same. What has changed is the framework OSIM will use when applying them. For international brand owners and their advisers, the practical question is straightforward: will the Romanian public see the sign as a badge of commercial origin, or merely as information about the goods, services or their benefits?

CP16: when content becomes descriptive

CP16 addresses signs that describe the topic, content or subject matter of the goods or services covered by an application. The central test is whether the relevant public would, without further reflection, perceive a direct and immediate link between the meaning of the sign and the subject matter of the goods or services. OSIM should consider the relevant Romanian public, the meaning attributed to the sign, the nature of the goods or services and the commercial reality of the market concerned.

This is particularly relevant for goods that commonly carry content, such as software, electronic publications, books and games, and for services whose commercial purpose may revolve around a particular topic.

The treatment of advertising services in Class 35 is a good example. A term such as “FASHION” may be descriptive where the public understands it as identifying a specialised advertising sector. By contrast, a reference to an individual product will not automatically describe advertising services merely because that product could be advertised. The existence, or reasonable possibility, of a specialised advertising market will matter, and that analysis may differ from one country to another.

CP16 takes a different approach to telecommunications services in Class 38. Those services are generally technical: they provide the means by which content is transmitted, rather than the content itself. A sign describing the subject of a film, podcast or television programme should therefore not, on that basis alone, be descriptive of the transmission service. This does not prevent OSIM from raising a different absolute-ground objection.

CP17: a slogan can promote and still function as a trade mark

CP17 confirms that slogans should not be subjected to a stricter distinctiveness test than other word marks. A slogan does not become unregistrable simply because it promotes the relevant goods or services. The real issue is whether the public will also perceive it as identifying their commercial origin.

Wordplay, multiple meanings, an unusual syntactic structure, conceptual tension or an element of surprise may support registrability. So may wording that requires a degree of interpretation or triggers a cognitive response. None of these features is conclusive on its own, and a slogan does not have to be exceptionally imaginative to qualify for protection. At the other end of the spectrum, a conventional statement of quality or benefit, understood immediately as an ordinary advertising message, is more likely to be refused.

There is an important Romanian dimension. The examples in CP17 are in English and are assessed on the assumption that they are understood by a native English speaker. They illustrate the methodology, but do not predetermine how an English-language slogan will be perceived in Romania. In a Romanian application, the relevant question remains what the targeted Romanian public is likely to understand.

What should international applicants do?

The adoption of CP16 and CP17 should make OSIM’s reasoning more consistent with that of EUIPO and other participating European offices. It should not, however, encourage a one-size-fits-all filing strategy. Before filing in Romania, applicants should test the proposed mark against the precise specification of goods and services and the perception of the Romanian public. For foreign-language signs, translations and the level of understanding among Romanian consumers may be significant. In Class 35 cases, information about the structure of the local market may prove decisive.

For slogans, applicants should be prepared to explain why the wording does more than communicate a promotional promise. The strongest arguments will usually focus on the interaction between the slogan and the goods or services, rather than on creativity in the abstract.

Romanian law requires an objection affecting only certain goods or services to be limited to those items. A properly structured specification may therefore contain the impact of an absolute-ground objection. Convergence does not eliminate local assessment. For businesses filing in Romania, language, consumer perception and the realities of the Romanian market remain central to the registrability analysis.

If you would like to discuss how CP16 and CP17 may affect your Romanian trade mark strategy or a pending application, please contact us using the form below.