When a trade fair seizure is threatened: what to do first
A trade fair seizure means a rights holder has already obtained, or is actively seeking, a court order to remove goods from your stand before the fair closes. The first hour matters more than the first day. Preserve evidence, identify the applicant and the exact registration behind the claim, and get a response filed while the order can still be reviewed.
The right typically enforced against your stand
Most stand seizures at EU trade fairs rest on a registered European Union trade mark, protected under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR). The regulation gives the holder an exclusive right to stop use of an identical or confusingly similar sign on goods of the same or related kind. A court order at the fair is that exclusive right enforced on short notice, before the goods disperse to buyers.
A separate mechanism exists at the border, not on the exhibition floor. Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 lets customs authorities suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights as they cross into or out of the customs territory. It has no application inside a fair hall, and a stand seizure is not executed under that regulation.
| Trade fair seizure | Customs seizure | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Exclusive right under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR), enforced by court order | Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 |
| Where it happens | On the exhibition floor, during the fair | At the customs border, on entry or exit |
| Who executes it | A court officer or bailiff acting on judicial order | The customs authority |
| What triggers it | An application for provisional measures by the rights holder | An application for action lodged with customs, or its own suspicion |
| Immediate effect | Goods removed from display; evidence secured on the spot | Goods suspended from release |
What changes for you right now
Once an order has been served, three things change at once. The goods on display can no longer be shown, sold or handed to visitors until the order is lifted or varied. The clock for a formal response starts running, and it is short — often measured against the days the fair itself has left, not against weeks. Your exhibition contract with the organiser may also give the organiser its own right to remove or relocate your stand, independently of the court order.
Where the stand contract runs on terms tied to a product line rather than to the fair dates, a dispute over what the contract still covers can outlast the seizure itself; see When the contract term outlives the product: what to do first for that separate problem.
What to do, in order
- Instruct counsel to obtain a copy of the order and the registration it relies on from the court officer executing it, before anything else is discussed.
- Photograph, count and log every item removed, together with the officer's report, before the goods leave the stand.
- Have counsel check the status of the mark relied upon — validity, ownership, and the scope of goods actually covered — before conceding anything.
- File the response or referral within the deadline stated on the order itself; there is no uniform EU-wide number of days for this step, and the order in hand controls.
- Notify the fair organiser in writing and request the organiser's own record of events for its file.
- Preserve every document generated during the seizure for the merits proceedings that follow.
Who decides, and on what evidence
The order is issued and reviewed by the national court with jurisdiction over the fair venue. Where a European Union trade mark is the right being enforced, that court sits as an EU trade mark court under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR). It decides on the papers already before it: the registration certificate, the applicant's sworn account of the infringement, and the executing officer's report of what was seized. The order-making stage does not test the infringement claim in full — that comes later, on referral or in separate merits proceedings.
If the same stand also faces a claim that a product embeds a standard-essential patent, a related urgent dispute follows a different track; see What to do first in this situation and what to do when a standard body claims your patent is essential.
If your situation differs
If you hold your own earlier registration for the same sign, raise it on the record immediately. It can affect whether the order should have been granted at all, though it does not undo a seizure already carried out.
If the mark relied upon is only an application and not yet registered, say so. A right under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) does not exist until registration, and an application supports a weaker claim.
If the goods are not identical to what the registration covers — a different class, a different get-up — argue scope before arguing validity. Scope disputes are usually resolved faster.
If the seizure is only one part of a wider freeze — for instance because a related digital product launch has also been halted — treat the two as separate procedures with separate deadlines; a similar pause is examined in When the issue is paused mid-sale explained.
How the cost is scoped
What this costs to handle depends on how many stands, marks and jurisdictions are involved, whether an opponent has already engaged separate counsel, and how many days remain before the fair closes. We do not publish prices for this work. A partner responds within minutes during business hours, and a scoped estimate follows within one working day once the order and the registration extract are in hand.
What this page does not resolve
This page does not decide whether the underlying use actually infringes — that question belongs to the merits proceedings the seizure triggers, not to the seizure itself. It does not state a fixed number of days for any response; national court calendars differ, and the order in front of you controls. It does not cover customs suspensions under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, which follow their own file and their own deadlines.
Verified
Checked against Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) and Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. Last checked: 20 February 2025. Where the question moves from what happened at the fair to what can be established about the goods themselves — origin, prior use, the paper trail behind a batch — that is a provenance question, not a seizure question; our mapping of what is knowable in one such file is at Asset in France and the deadline.
Related situations
A related dispute pattern, still inside trade mark law: When a competitor claims bad faith and its limits asks what to do when the claim against your mark is that it was filed to block someone else, not to identify your own goods.
FAQ
What is the first step when a trade fair seizure is threatened?
Instruct counsel to obtain the order and the registration it relies on directly from the court officer executing it, and log every item before it is removed. Evidence taken at this stage cannot be recreated later.
Which deadline is already running?
The deadline for a formal response or referral, stated on the face of the order itself. Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) does not set a uniform number of days for this step across member states — the order controls.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The national court with jurisdiction over the venue, sitting as an EU trade mark court where a mark under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (EUTMR) is at stake. It decides on the registration certificate, the applicant's sworn account, and the executing officer's report — not on a full merits hearing at this stage.