A Warsaw-based software company is preparing to launch in three EU markets. The founders ask a straightforward question: one EU trademark or a Polish registration first? The answer shapes cost, timeline, and the risk of losing the brand entirely to a faster competitor.

An EU trademark (European Union Trade Mark, EUTM) registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) covers all 27 member states in a single filing, while a Polish trademark registered with the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland (Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, UPRP) protects only Polish territory. The EUTM filing fee starts at EUR 850 for one class, compared to PLN 450 for a national Polish application. Choosing between them depends on where you sell, where your competitors operate, and how quickly you need enforceable rights.

This guide walks through the step-by-step procedure, realistic timelines, and costs for each route. It then applies that framework to three business scenarios – a domestic Polish startup, a German investor entering Poland, and a Polish IT company scaling across the EU – before identifying the most common filing mistakes and answering the questions clients ask most often.

What does each trademark route actually cover?

The EUTM and the Polish national mark are structurally different instruments. Understanding that difference is the first step toward a rational filing decision. One covers a continent; the other covers a single jurisdiction with a well-defined commercial footprint.

A Polish trademark filed with the UPRP grants exclusive rights across Poland for ten years, renewable indefinitely. The UPRP examines the mark for absolute grounds – distinctiveness, descriptive character, deceptive potential – but does not conduct a systematic search for earlier conflicting marks. That burden falls on the applicant. The registration fee is PLN 450 per class for the first three years, with a renewal fee structure thereafter. Processing typically takes 6 to 9 months from filing to registration, assuming no oppositions.

An EUTM filed with the EUIPO covers all EU member states simultaneously. It is examined centrally, and any earlier national mark in any member state can block it through an opposition. The base fee is EUR 850 for one class online (EUR 50 per additional class up to three, then EUR 150 per class beyond that). The timeline runs 4 to 6 months to registration when the path is clear – faster than many expect, because EUIPO examination is efficient. The trade-off: a single earlier conflicting mark anywhere in the EU can defeat the entire application.

  • Polish trademark: PLN 450 per class, 6–9 months, Poland only
  • EUTM: EUR 850 first class, 4–6 months, all 27 EU states
  • EUTM opposition window: 3 months after publication
  • Both routes offer 10-year initial terms, renewable
  • Neither route is automatically "better" – market scope decides

For businesses with an IP protection strategy for tech companies operating across borders, the choice between routes is rarely binary. Many clients file both – a national mark for speed and a fallback position, an EUTM for coverage.

How does the step-by-step filing procedure differ?

The procedural mechanics of each route diverge at the search stage and converge at renewal. Knowing the steps in sequence prevents the most expensive mistakes – particularly the failure to conduct a clearance search before committing to a brand name.

For a Polish filing, the process begins with a clearance search against the UPRP register and the EUIPO database (since EUTM holders can oppose Polish marks). The application is then filed online through the UPRP portal, specifying the mark, the Nice Classification classes, and the applicant's details. The UPRP issues a filing receipt within days, establishing the priority date. Formal examination follows, then substantive examination for absolute grounds. The mark is published in the Official Gazette of the UPRP, opening a 3-month opposition window. If no opposition is filed, or if oppositions are resolved, the certificate issues.

For an EUTM, the clearance search should cover all 27 national registers plus the EUIPO database – a materially wider net. The application is filed online at EUIPO. The office examines for absolute grounds only; it does not examine relative grounds (earlier conflicting marks) on its own initiative. After examination, EUIPO notifies owners of potentially conflicting earlier marks, who then have 3 months to file an opposition. Opposition proceedings at EUIPO can take 12 to 24 months if contested – a timeline that surprises many applicants.

One procedural advantage of the EUTM route: the priority right. A Polish application filed first gives the applicant a 6-month window to file an EUTM claiming the Polish priority date. This is useful when a company starts domestically and then decides to expand. The priority date is the date that matters for blocking competitors.

Which route fits your business scenario?

Three scenarios illustrate how the decision framework works in practice. Each reflects a different commercial reality and leads to a different filing strategy. The right answer is always fact-specific – but the pattern is predictable.

Scenario 1 – Polish domestic startup. A Kraków-based e-commerce business sells exclusively in Poland and has no near-term EU expansion plans. Budget is limited. The correct instrument is a Polish national trademark. The filing cost is low, the timeline is manageable, and the protection matches the actual market. Filing an EUTM here wastes money on coverage that generates no commercial return. The risk to manage: a competitor could file an EUTM covering Poland before the startup expands. Monitoring the EUIPO register is therefore worthwhile even for purely domestic businesses.

Scenario 2 – German investor entering Poland. A German manufacturer sets up a Polish subsidiary and wants brand protection from day one. The parent already holds an EUTM covering Germany. That EUTM automatically covers Poland. No separate Polish filing is needed – the EUTM is enforceable before Polish courts and the UPRP. The investor should, however, verify that the EUTM has been used in the EU within the 5-year period required to maintain genuine use, or the mark becomes vulnerable to revocation.

Scenario 3 – Polish IT company scaling across the EU. A Warsaw-based software-as-a-service company is entering France, Germany, and the Netherlands within 18 months. An EUTM is the efficient instrument. One filing, one renewal, one enforcement framework across all target markets. We secured trademark registration for a technology client in Mazowieckie region (spring 2025), enabling them to block a copycat product launch in two EU markets within weeks of registration. The lesson: file early, before the brand has commercial value and before competitors notice it.

For businesses structuring their Polish entry alongside broader compliance considerations – including data transfer frameworks from Poland to Switzerland – trademark strategy should be coordinated with the overall legal setup from the outset.

To receive an expert assessment of your trademark filing strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

What are the most common mistakes when filing in Poland or at EUIPO?

Filing errors fall into two categories: procedural mistakes that cause delay, and strategic mistakes that forfeit rights permanently. The second category is the one that generates disputes – and costs far more than the original filing fee.

The most frequent procedural error is filing in the wrong Nice Classification class. A technology company that files only in Class 42 (software services) but sells physical products under the same brand has no protection in Class 9 (hardware). Competitors can legitimately register the same mark for the unprotected classes. The UPRP and EUIPO will not alert the applicant to this gap – the classification decision is the applicant's responsibility.

The most damaging strategic error is failing to conduct a clearance search before adopting a brand name. A company that invests in brand-building – websites, packaging, marketing – and then discovers a conflicting earlier mark faces rebranding costs that dwarf the original trademark budget. Personal liability does not arise here in the corporate law sense, but the commercial loss is irreversible. A search costs a fraction of what rebranding costs.

  • Wrong classification: leaves gaps competitors can exploit
  • No clearance search: risks rebranding after investment
  • Ignoring EUTM oppositions: default judgment against the mark
  • Non-use for 5 years: EUTM becomes vulnerable to revocation

A further mistake specific to the EUTM route: ignoring the opposition period. EUIPO sends notice of potential conflicts, but the applicant must actively monitor and respond. Missing the 3-month opposition response window can result in a loss of rights that precludes any later challenge. We obtained a reversal of an EUIPO opposition decision for a technology client in Lower Silesia (autumn 2024), but the process required 14 months of proceedings that a timely clearance search would have avoided entirely.

For companies managing IP alongside corporate governance and asset protection – including family holding structures covered in our guide to family foundations in Poland – trademark rights should be assigned to the correct legal entity from the outset. Assigning marks after the fact triggers costs and risks that are avoidable.

For a tailored strategy on trademark filing and brand protection, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can I convert a Polish trademark into an EU trademark later?

A: There is no direct conversion mechanism, but you can file an EUTM claiming the priority date of an earlier Polish application, provided you file within 6 months of the Polish filing date. After that window closes, the EUTM gets a new priority date, which may allow competitors to file conflicting marks in the interim. Acting within the 6-month window is therefore important for companies that start with a national filing and then decide to expand.

Q: How much does a trademark dispute cost, and how long does it take?

A: Opposition proceedings at EUIPO typically take 12 to 24 months and cost EUR 320 in filing fees alone, with legal representation adding significantly to that figure. Proceedings before the UPRP follow a similar timeline. Court-based infringement actions in Poland can take 2 to 4 years at first instance. The cost of a clearance search – typically a few hundred euros – is negligible by comparison. Early investment in search and strategy is consistently more cost-effective than litigation.

Q: Does an EUTM protect me automatically against Polish copycats, or do I need to enforce it separately?

A: An EUTM is enforceable before Polish courts and provides grounds for customs seizure of infringing goods entering Poland. Enforcement is not automatic – the rights holder must actively monitor the market and initiate proceedings. Polish courts apply EU trademark law directly, so an EUTM holder has the same standing as a UPRP registrant. One practical note: GDPR Poland rules on evidence gathering can affect how you document infringement, so coordinating trademark enforcement with data protection compliance is advisable.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to IP protection, trademark filing, and technology law. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. Our IP and technology practice covers trademark strategy, AI Act Poland compliance, DORA compliance, GDPR Poland matters, and IP lawyer Warsaw services for domestic and cross-border mandates. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.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. KORDECKI & Partners 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@kordeckipartners.com.