For foreign companies, rights holders and in-house counsel, Romania is no longer a peripheral jurisdiction in European intellectual property (IP) enforcement. As an EU Member State, a participant in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) system and a jurisdiction where courts are increasingly comfortable applying EU IP law and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, Romania can be both a strategic forum and a critical enforcement node in cross-border disputes.
This article offers a practical roadmap for foreign rights holders considering litigation in Romania. It focuses on three core pillars: (1) identifying the competent courts and applicable law; (2) building and presenting evidence, including expert and digital evidence; and (3) coordinating Romanian proceedings with actions at EU or international level (such as EUIPO, UPC or proceedings in other Member States). The perspective is deliberately strategic: how to combine national and EU tools so that one cross-border enforcement plan makes sense as a whole, rather than as a collection of isolated national lawsuits.
1. Strategic Context: Why Romania Matters in Cross-Border IP Litigation
Romania’s IP framework is anchored in EU law and in a set of modernised national statutes. Copyright and neighbouring rights are governed primarily by Law no. 8/1996 on copyright and neighbouring rights, repeatedly updated to align with EU directives on copyright and related rights, including the InfoSoc and subsequent reforms.Official text (Romanian) Trademarks and geographical indications are regulated by Law no. 84/1998, also heavily amended to transpose the EU Trade Mark Directive and harmonisation packages.Official text (Romanian) These national laws sit alongside directly applicable EU instruments, such as Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the EU trade mark and Regulation (EC) no. 6/2002 on Community designs, which create unitary EU-wide titles with their own jurisdictional regime.EUTM Regulation Community Designs Regulation
On the enforcement side, Romania has implemented the EU IP Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC almost literally through Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) no. 100/2005, supplemented by sector-specific IP laws and the Civil Procedure Code.OUG 100/2005 (Romanian) Directive 2004/48/EC This means that foreign rights holders should expect to find familiar tools: preliminary and permanent injunctions, evidence preservation measures, orders to disclose information and damages based on factors such as lost profits, unfair advantages or lump sums.
In patents, Romania has gone a step further by joining the Unified Patent Court regime. On 31 May 2024 Romania deposited its instrument of ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, with the Agreement entering into force for Romania on 1 September 2024.EPO notice on ratification From that date, unitary patents and (absent an opt-out) classic European patents validated in Romania fall within the jurisdiction of the UPC, in parallel with Romanian national courts for certain transitional situations.UPC entry into force for Romania Business-focused analysis
Finally, commercial litigation practice in Romania has matured significantly. The Bucharest Tribunal, Bucharest Court of Appeal and High Court of Cassation and Justice all have panels handling IP-heavy cases and complex commercial disputes, and international guidance notes that Romanian courts tend to be increasingly aligned with EU case law in IP matters.Patent litigation overview Legal 500 IP Romania For foreign rights holders, this combination of EU integration, national specialisation and relatively efficient procedures makes Romania an attractive part of a multi-jurisdictional litigation strategy.
Competent Courts and Applicable Law.
2.1 Romanian courts with jurisdiction over IP disputes
Romania does not have a single standalone “IP court”, but IP-heavy disputes are concentrated in certain courts and sections. The Bucharest Tribunal (Municipal Court of Bucharest) has specialised sections that hear patent, trademark and other IP disputes; the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice also have panels dealing with IP cases on appeal and in cassation.Patent litigation Romania Trademark practice note For some matters (such as certain patent invalidity actions) the Bucharest Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction, reflecting the concentration of technical IP expertise in the capital.
Trademarks and designs also involve the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (Oficiul de Stat pentru Invenții și Mărci – OSIM). Law no. 84/1998 gives OSIM competence for registration and certain administrative procedures, while infringement actions, damages and many invalidity questions can be brought before the courts.Law 84/1998 – English consolidation (OSIM) Amendments adopted in 2022 and applicable from January 2023 allow revocation and invalidation of national trademarks and international marks designating Romania to be pursued either before OSIM or before the Bucharest Tribunal; OSIM decisions can be appealed to the Bucharest Tribunal and then to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.FICPI note on amendments CMS analysis on OSIM cancellation
For a foreign rights holder, the usual litigation path in Romania will therefore involve:
- first-instance proceedings before the competent tribunal (often the Bucharest Tribunal for IP-heavy disputes);
- appeal to the competent Court of Appeal (commonly the Bucharest Court of Appeal in IP matters); and
- extraordinary remedies (recurs) to the High Court of Cassation and Justice in limited circumstances, usually on points of law.
Local counsel will also check territorial competence (based on the defendant’s domicile, place of harmful event or contractual clause) and any concentration rules for particular IP rights.
2.2 International jurisdiction under Brussels I bis
In intra-EU situations (for example, a German or French company suing a Romanian infringer or vice versa), international jurisdiction is governed by Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012 (the recast Brussels I Regulation).Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 The main rules relevant to IP disputes are:
- General rule (Article 4): the defendant must be sued in the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled.
- Special jurisdiction in tort (Article 7(2)): a defendant may also be sued “in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”, a formula interpreted by the CJEU as covering both the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurs.Consolidated text, Article 7(2) C-194/16
- Exclusive jurisdiction for validity (Article 24(4)): in proceedings which have as their object the registration or validity of IP rights requiring deposit or registration (such as national patents or trademarks), the courts of the Member State of registration have exclusive jurisdiction.Article 24(4) commentary
In practice, this means a foreign rights holder can often choose between suing in the Member State where the infringer is domiciled, or in the Member State where infringing acts occurred or where damage is suffered (for example, where infringing goods are sold or where a website targets consumers). However, claims that inherently involve the validity of a Romanian registration (for example, invalidity counterclaims concerning a Romanian trademark) will fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Romanian courts.
Recent CJEU case law in cross-border IP disputes, such as BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux (C-339/22), has emphasised the need to distinguish between validity and infringement when allocating jurisdiction, clarifying that Brussels I bis permits a combination of claims only to the extent they do not encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member State of registration.Case note on C-339/22
2.3 Applicable law: Rome II and IP-specific conflict rules
The law applicable to non-contractual obligations in civil and commercial matters, including many IP infringements, is governed in the EU by Regulation (EC) no. 864/2007 (Rome II).Rome II summary For IP rights, Article 8 of Rome II sets out a special rule: the law applicable to an infringement of an IP right is, as a rule, the law of the country for which protection is claimed. In other words, if the dispute concerns a Romanian national trademark or a Romanian copyright, Romanian law will generally apply, even if the infringer is domiciled elsewhere.
Where multi-state infringements occur (for example, an online platform accessible in several countries), Rome II allows claimants and defendants, in limited circumstances, to choose the law of a country where both parties have their habitual residence or to rely on other connecting factors such as the country where the damage occurs, but the basic principle remains territorial: national IP rights are governed by the law of the country of protection.Full text of Rome II
For EU-wide rights such as EU trademarks and Community designs, the applicable law is largely determined by the respective EU regulations; Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 contains its own rules on applicable law for EU trademarks, while Regulation (EC) no. 6/2002 does the same for Community designs.Regulation 2017/1001 Consolidated Regulation 6/2002
2.4 Patents, the Unified Patent Court and national courts
With Romania joining the Unified Patent Court, cross-border patent litigation strategy becomes more complex but also more powerful for foreign patent owners. The UPC hears infringement and revocation cases for European patents with unitary effect and – unless opted out – for classic European patents validated in participating Member States, including Romania.EPO notice Dennemeyer analysis UPC overview
Patent owners thus typically have three layers to consider:
- UPC central and local divisions for pan-European relief under unitary or non-opted-out European patents;
- Romanian national courts for Romanian national patents and for European patents that have been opted out (at least during the transitional period); and
- Administrative proceedings before patent offices (EPO or OSIM) for oppositions or limitations.
Coordination between UPC and Romanian national actions is essential to avoid inconsistent decisions and to manage lis pendens or related actions under Brussels I bis. While the UPC is a common court of several Member States and thus falls within the Brussels I bis system, the precise interplay in parallel proceedings requires careful case-by-case analysis with specialised patent counsel.
2.5 EU trade marks, Community designs and their interaction with Romanian proceedings
EU trade marks and Community designs provide unitary protection across all EU Member States, including Romania.Regulation 2017/1001 Regulation 6/2002 Infringement and validity actions for these rights are handled by designated “EU trade mark courts” and “Community design courts” in each Member State. Romania designates national courts (notably in Bucharest) for such disputes, which apply both EU law and national procedural rules.
In practice, a foreign rights holder will often combine:
- EUIPO proceedings (for invalidity or revocation of EU rights) with
- Romanian civil actions based on those same rights (for injunctions and damages), and possibly
- Romanian national actions based on parallel national rights (such as national trademarks, company names or unfair competition).
Coherence between these layers is crucial: Romanian courts may stay proceedings where EUIPO decisions or other EU-level determinations are pending, and Article 129 and following of Regulation 2017/1001 coordinate applicable law and sanctions in EU trade mark disputes.Article-by-article overview
Evidence Gathering and Expert Reports.
3.1 General rules on evidence in Romanian civil proceedings
Romanian civil procedure relies on a broad catalogue of means of proof. According to the information published on the European e-Justice Portal, facts in civil cases can be proved by documents, witness testimony, expert reports, on-site inspections, admissions of parties, presumptions, physical evidence and any other means provided by law.Romania – taking of evidence Evidence overview (Romania) The court has an active role: it may order additional evidence ex officio where necessary for establishing the facts, even if the parties have not specifically requested it.
The modern Code of Civil Procedure, in force since 2013, systematises these evidentiary rules to align them with contemporary civil justice standards, while maintaining the judge’s responsibility to actively manage evidence in pursuit of the “material truth”.Academic analysis of evidence rules For foreign litigants, this means that a well-prepared evidentiary strategy can be significantly enhanced by judicial cooperation, but also that courts will scrutinise the relevance and sufficiency of evidence rather than simply validating the parties’ choices.
3.2 IP-specific measures: implementation of the Enforcement Directive
Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of IP rights obliges Member States to provide efficient mechanisms for preserving, obtaining and presenting evidence in IP disputes, including measures to secure evidence, orders to disclose information and protective measures for confidential data.Directive 2004/48/EC The Directive emphasises that evidence is of “paramount importance” and that courts must be able to order measures, even ex parte, to prevent destruction of evidence.Text and commentary
Romania implemented these obligations through GEO no. 100/2005, which transposes the Enforcement Directive into national law for industrial property rights and supplements existing civil and criminal remedies.OUG 100/2005 Scholarly analysis confirms that the Romanian legislator essentially copied the Directive’s provisions into national law, adding them to previously existing remedies under IP-specific statutes and general civil law.Chapter on Romania in EU enforcement volume
In practice, foreign rights holders can ask Romanian courts for:
- measures to preserve evidence (similar in effect to the French saisie-contrefaçon, though adapted to Romanian procedure);
- orders compelling defendants or third parties (including intermediaries such as ISPs) to disclose information on origins, distribution networks and quantities of infringing goods;
- preliminary injunctions aimed at quickly stopping alleged infringements, sometimes before the full trial on the merits; and
- damages and other final remedies, including destruction of infringing goods and publication of the judgment.
Recent Romanian case law on preliminary injunctions in trademark matters illustrates how courts apply the Enforcement Directive’s conditions (appearance of right, urgency and proportionality) when deciding whether to grant ex parte or inter partes interim measures.Case law developments on GEO 100/2005
3.3 Digital evidence and online infringements
In cross-border IP disputes, much of the crucial evidence is digital: website content, source code, server logs, metadata, platform usage records, social media posts, blockchain entries or telemetry generated by software and connected devices. Romanian practice has evolved rapidly in this area. Recent practitioner commentary emphasises that digital evidence is broadly admissible in Romanian courts, provided its authenticity, integrity and relevance can be demonstrated according to the rules of civil procedure.Digital evidence in Romanian litigation
For foreign rights holders, this translates into several concrete steps:
- carefully document online infringements (screenshots, web captures, server logs), ideally with time-stamping and, where possible, independent verification (such as notarial or bailiff reports);
- ensure the technical chain of custody is robust, especially when collecting evidence from cloud platforms or overseas servers; and
- coordinate with local counsel early, to decide whether court-ordered IT expert reports or specialised forensic services are advisable.
Because many online infringements cross borders, evidence-gathering may require cooperation with other Member States’ authorities or courts, which leads directly to EU rules on cross-border taking of evidence and service of documents.
3.4 Expert reports in technically complex IP disputes
Many IP cases in Romania – especially patents, complex trademarks or software copyright disputes – turn on highly technical questions: whether a product falls within a claim, whether two signs are confusingly similar, whether a software module reproduces protectable elements of another. Romanian courts routinely appoint court experts to address such issues; according to litigation guides, expert evidence is usually given in writing, in a report answering questions formulated by the court and the parties, and experts can be summoned for oral clarifications.Chambers Litigation 2025 – Romania Practice paper on evidence in court
Because judges typically do not have technical training, it is relatively straightforward for parties to obtain an expert opinion where technical issues are material to the dispute.Evidence in court analysis Romanian IP scholarship also underscores that the New Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code explicitly consider the interplay between technical IP relationships and procedural rules, making expert input especially important in this area.The New Civil Code of Romania and its impact on IP
From a strategic perspective, foreign rights holders should:
- identify early which issues will likely require expert clarification (for example, likelihood of confusion, technical equivalence, quantification of damages);
- consider obtaining private expert opinions before or during litigation to shape the court’s questions and counter the opposing party’s narrative; and
- prepare cross-examination or written questions for court-appointed experts, especially where foreign standards, technologies or markets are involved.
Appeal practice in Romanian IP cases shows that higher courts scrutinise the reasoning of expert reports and the way lower courts have engaged with them, rather than simply treating them as binding.Case-study style analysis of appeals in IP cases This gives litigants room to challenge inadequate or biased expertise on appeal.
3.5 Cross-border taking of evidence and service of documents
When witnesses, documents or other evidence are located in another EU Member State, Romanian courts rely on Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 on cooperation between courts in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. The Regulation, applicable since July 2022, is designed to simplify and accelerate cross-border evidence gathering, allowing courts either to request another Member State’s court to take evidence or to take evidence directly in that state under specified conditions.Regulation 2020/1783 e-Justice summary
Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in cross-border EU cases is governed by Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, which replaces Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 and aims to improve speed and reliability of service (including via electronic methods) while safeguarding addressees’ rights and data protection.Regulation 2020/1784 Commission summary
As a practical matter, foreign right holders should ensure that:
- key foreign witnesses and documents likely to be needed in Romanian proceedings are identified as early as possible;
- local counsel plan the time and procedural steps required for formal requests under the evidence-taking and service regulations; and
- any parallel actions in other Member States are coordinated so that evidence gathered in one forum can be used effectively in another, subject to each court’s rules.
Coordination with EU and International Actions.
4.1 Managing parallel proceedings and lis pendens in the EU
Cross-border IP disputes often involve parallel actions: for example, a Romanian infringer sued in its home courts while the same conduct is challenged in the rights holder’s home country or in another key market. Brussels I bis addresses this through rules on lis pendens and related actions (Articles 29–34). Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, the court second seised must stay its proceedings and may eventually decline jurisdiction once the first court’s jurisdiction is established.Brussels I bis text Brussels I bis – e-Justice explanation
For “related actions” that are not identical but are closely connected, Brussels I bis allows courts to stay proceedings or decline jurisdiction to avoid irreconcilable judgments. In the IP context, this often arises when national courts in different Member States are asked to assess the same or similar conduct in relation to national parts of an EU-wide right or comparable national rights.
Strategically, a foreign rights holder should map where it most wants to litigate and consider whether to seize that court first in order to set the jurisdictional tone for the dispute. Romanian courts are bound by Brussels I bis and will apply these lis pendens and related actions rules; they will also recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of courts dealing with validity issues in other Member States under Article 24.
4.2 Coordination with EUIPO and other EU administrative proceedings
EUIPO proceedings (oppositions, invalidity and revocation actions) are frequently run in parallel with national infringement litigation. Regulation 2017/1001 and its implementing rules address the interaction between EUIPO decisions, EU trade mark courts and national courts. For example, Article 124 and following designate national courts as EU trade mark courts and regulate how they may refer questions or stay proceedings in light of EUIPO decisions.EU trade mark regulation (annotated)
From a Romanian perspective, this coordination typically includes:
- using EUIPO invalidity or revocation actions to clear the path before or during Romanian infringement litigation;
- invoking EUIPO decisions (or pending actions) before the Romanian court as part of the factual and legal background; and
- considering whether to stay Romanian proceedings pending a crucial EUIPO or CJEU decision, especially where the dispute hinges on registrability or validity issues that will be decided at EU level.
Because Romanian courts must apply EU law and follow CJEU jurisprudence, a coherent EU-level strategy (including EUIPO, EU trade mark courts in other Member States and possible preliminary references) is essential when large regional markets are involved.
4.3 Coordinating Romanian actions with UPC litigation
For patents, the advent of the UPC adds an additional coordination layer. If a foreign rights holder opts to use the UPC against Romanian (and other EU) infringers, it may obtain pan-European relief for unitary and non-opted-out European patents, including measures applicable in Romania.Romania and UPC However, national Romanian courts retain jurisdiction over national patents and over certain issues relating to opted-out European patents.
Key strategic considerations include:
- whether to opt out existing European patents that are particularly important in Romania but not necessarily across the entire UPC territory;
- whether to seek preliminary measures (such as seizures or provisional injunctions) in Romanian courts while pursuing UPC actions for broader relief; and
- how to manage timing and lis pendens issues, given that the UPC is treated as a “court of a Member State” for Brussels I bis purposes.
Given the novelty and evolving case law of the UPC, foreign rights holders should expect that optimal strategies will change over time and will need to be revisited as UPC jurisprudence develops.
4.4 Recognition and enforcement of Romanian judgments abroad and foreign judgments in Romania
Within the EU, recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments – including IP judgments – are governed by Brussels I bis. The Regulation abolishes the traditional exequatur procedure for judgments between Member States: a judgment given in one Member State is recognised in the others without the need for special procedures, and an enforceable judgment in the state of origin is enforceable in another Member State without a declaration of enforceability.Brussels I bis – legal summary Romanian-language summary
This means that a Romanian IP judgment (for example, a trademark infringement decision ordering an injunction and damages) can be enforced relatively straightforwardly against assets or defendants located in other EU Member States, and vice versa. The European e-Justice Portal describes in detail how this works in practice and how the judicial atlas can be used to identify competent courts and enforcement authorities.Brussels I bis – e-Justice portal
For judgments originating outside the EU, enforcement in Romania depends on bilateral or multilateral treaties and on national private international law rules. Recent practice guides on cross-border dispute resolution in Romania emphasise that foreign businesses must carefully assess the origin of a judgment and applicable convention regimes (such as the New York Convention for arbitral awards), because the applicable recognition and enforcement framework differs from the Brussels I bis regime.Cross-border dispute resolution guide (Romania)
4.5 Interaction with customs and criminal enforcement
Although this article focuses on civil and commercial litigation, foreign rights holders should not overlook border measures and criminal enforcement as components of a cross-border strategy. EU customs Regulation frameworks and national customs rules allow IP owners to request detention of suspected counterfeit goods at the EU’s external borders and within Member States, including Romania. Meanwhile, Romanian law provides for criminal sanctions in serious IP infringement cases, and Romania is party to TRIPS and other international agreements requiring effective enforcement of IP rights.EU summary of the Enforcement Directive Legal 500 IP Romania
Practically, rights holders will often combine:
- customs applications for action (to intercept parallel imports or counterfeit consignments);
- civil injunctions and damages claims in Romanian courts; and
- criminal complaints where infringement is large-scale or clearly intentional.
Coordinating these tools with EU-level measures and with actions in other Member States ensures consistent pressure on infringers and maximises deterrent effect.
5. Conclusion: Building a Coherent Cross-Border Strategy Around Romania
For foreign rights holders, Romania offers both challenges and opportunities in cross-border IP litigation. On the one hand, the legal landscape is dense: national IP statutes, a modern Civil Procedure Code, transposition of the Enforcement Directive, direct application of EU regulations (Brussels I bis, Rome II, EUTM and Community design regulations, evidence and service regulations) and, now, participation in the Unified Patent Court. On the other hand, this density brings predictability: many of the key concepts, remedies and conflict-of-law rules are those that experienced European IP litigators already know.
A robust Romanian litigation strategy for a cross-border IP dispute will typically involve:
- confirming jurisdiction and applicable law under Brussels I bis and Rome II;
- deciding whether to proceed before Romanian national courts, EU fora (EUIPO, UPC) or both, and in what sequence;
- designing an evidence plan that makes full use of Romanian procedural tools, expert reports and EU mechanisms for cross-border evidence and service;
- anticipating and managing parallel proceedings and lis pendens issues across the EU; and
- coordinating civil, customs and (where appropriate) criminal enforcement tools into a single coherent plan.
Because Romanian courts are increasingly integrated into the EU judicial enforcement network and aligned with CJEU case law, rights holders who treat Romania as an integral part of their European IP enforcement strategy – rather than an afterthought – can leverage local procedures and expertise to achieve effective, coordinated protection of their IP portfolios across borders.