Inspiring Innovation and Creativity in Benelux: A Conversation with Hugues Derème

Hugues Derème (BOIP, The Netherlands)

Hugues Derème became Director General of the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) on July 1, 2024. His mandate lasts for five years.

Mr. Derème joined BOIP in 2008 as Deputy Director General, responsible for the Office’s operational activities within the Operations and Legal and International Affairs departments and for international cooperation with partner organizations. Prior to joining BOIP, he worked as a lawyer and in business.

BOIP was established in 1971 and is an independent international organization with a staff of 86. It is responsible for the registration of trademarks and designs in the Benelux countries (Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands). It also administers the i-DEPOT system for recording ideas and handles trademark registration for certain Dutch overseas territories.

The role of Director General rotates between representatives of the three member states. During his term as Director General, Mr. Derème maintains his Deputy Director General responsibilities but takes on new tasks, such as being accountable to the Administrative Council for the organization.

A few months after his appointment, BOIP published its Strategic Plan 2030 (BOIP 2030), setting out its goals for the next five years.

In this interview with the INTA Bulletin, Mr. Derème discusses the Strategic Plan and the latest initiatives from the Office and shares some thoughts on how to inspire innovation and creativity in Europe.

BOIP recently unveiled its Strategic Plan 2030. Can you summarize the key objectives?
Giving a clear strategic direction to the Office was one of my priorities when I became Director General. I had some time to prepare the plan, and it was quite a long process. We consulted broadly with user associations, political authorities, and business, and the plan was approved by the Administrative Council at the beginning of this year. It’s an ambitious plan with three themes, each of which has three strategic goals.

The first theme is: BOIP Delivers. This is our first and most obvious responsibility: to provide reliable and human-centric services. Within that, the strategic goals are threefold: accessibility of information and services, quality of administrative and legal output, and customer centricity.

On quality, we have ISO 9001 certification (regarding processes), but I want to go further on the quality of content. We recognize that intellectual property (IP) is not an exact science. For example, if you ask if something is distinctive, you won’t always get one answer. Only by sitting down with users of the system can we improve the intrinsic quality of our work. A few months ago, we launched a quality program which will become permanent, where we meet with professionals to discuss their feedback on specific cases on how decisions are built and motivated, and their conformity with case law. This showed, first, that that we want to exchange information. Second, it shows that the input we received was very valuable and enabled us to improve. So, it shows we need to be constantly talking to users and end users.

The second theme is: BOIP Connects. This is about IP for entrepreneurs, society, and policymakers. You have to understand before you act. For example, we need a better data strategy to understand business and SME needs, and we need to think about the narrative around IP when we talk to policymakers. It’s also about the IP network. IP is an ecosystem, especially in the EU where we have three layers of protection (national, EU, and international). IP offices exist only if we’re relevant for business; otherwise, we’re just an extra layer of administration.

The third theme is: BOIP Commits. This is about our values and convictions. Values are more important than ever. That includes transparency and adaptability and building a sustainable organization—both in terms of having a positive impact with regard to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles and being self-supporting: that is, financially sustainable in terms of both costs and revenues. I also want us to be an inspiring employer with a motivating and rewarding environment, and a contributor to society—both locally and nationally.

How do you aim to achieve these objectives, and what progress have you made so far?
BOIP 2030 is a framework. It’s an ambitious plan, but I describe it as a dot on the horizon. We need to be agile within the framework, based on dialogue with the whole IP community.

There are two main aspects of implementation. First, it must be functional: IP is not a goal in itself but a tool to help business, so it must match business needs. Second, it must be holistic. We have to present IP as a toolbox to convince business. We must accept that it will be a joint concern and that some of these goals can only be achieved in close cooperation with partners.

We have an implementation plan for every year which asks: where do we want to be at the end of the year across the nine strategic goals, for example, on digitalization and ADR—alternative dispute resolution? We monitor progress permanently and track KPIs on a monthly basis to ensure we deliver by the end of each year.

The vision of the Strategic Plan 2030 is to make IP an integral part of every business plan in the Benelux. How can this be achieved, and do you have any targets in terms of timing, business size, etc.?
SMEs are a key focus for BOIP. We need to show how IP is relevant for their business journey and put IP on the radar of every entrepreneur from the very beginning, for example, by working with the Chamber of Commerce.

In Europe, we have the coexistence of the EU trademark (EUTM), International Registrations, and national/Benelux rights. This is where the functional and holistic approach comes in. SMEs may not need EU or international protection but only something that matches their needs. If you want to buy a coat, you choose the best size for you—you don’t go for the biggest one just because it’s the same price for more stuff. It’s the same with IP.

The key challenges are entrepreneurs and small businesses. Many have prejudices that the IP system is complex, expensive, or skewed in favor of big companies. We need to address each of those concerns. For example, we launched basic e-filing, which spares entrepreneurs from most of the legal subtilities that are irrelevant to them. Last year, in the Netherlands, we also launched a tool called Name Checker, which enables the user to check with one click if a name is available as a trademark and trade name (and hopefully in the future as a domain name as well).

What specific aspects of the plan will address the needs of SMEs?
We’ve been making assumptions about how SMEs use IP or not. But I want data so that we can make fact-based decisions about the relevance of IP to SMEs. That includes surveys and research. In Belgium, we had an econometric study on the coexistence of IP rights (trademarks, designs, patents, and plant varieties) to help businesses develop. That’s the kind of thing we need more of.

There’s a prejudice against IP among some SMEs who think IP isn’t for them. They invest in creating trademarks and designs, but if these are not properly protected, that’s a wasted investment. We estimate that at BOIP, more than 80 percent of our applicants have fewer than 10 employees.

We’re looking at the fee structure to see if we can adjust fees to address this. The SME Fund is also very popular in the Benelux.

I want to be sure businesses come for the right reasons, and I want to help them make the right choices. For example, we’re looking at our websites and tools to ensure we use plain language and not legal jargon. If we want to reach entrepreneurs, we need to explain IP in simple words. On this point, I’m proud of our recent fifth place—tied with the USPTO—in the World Trademark Review’s ranking of the most accessible IP office websites.

Another hot topic is ADR. Conflicts are very distracting for entrepreneurs. If we can offer ADR cheaply, it’ll certainly be helpful for them. We’ll look at the role BOIP can play, and maybe we can be more active in assisting parties to get together and reach solutions. We know that only about 15 in every 100 cases go to a decision, so the majority are settled. We can help parties settle by explaining the conflict and having a positive impact.

How is BOIP embracing new tools and technologies, including those based on AI, and what opportunities and challenges do such tools present?
We cannot ignore AI. There are two sides to it. On one side, we’re already seeing some of the challenges—as we estimate that 40 percent of the objections we receive from applicants against provisional refusals are now AI-generated. That’s changed in just the past few months and creates additional work for us, as we have to explain more.

On the more positive side, it’s an exciting time from a technological point of view. We can streamline and improve efficiency and quality in our business. We’ve been using AI internally already, we have very good guidelines for the use of AI, and we’ve offered training to our staff—for example, on how to write prompts. It’s clear that AI is already being used heavily.

There are areas where I want to see concrete results by December 2025. For our core business, we’re selecting an AI agent. Most likely, we won’t build an AI solution but configure an off-the-shelf solution that we can use internally at certain points in the process. By the end of this year, a few steps in the process will be supported by AI solutions.

Next year, we hope to roll out some tools externally, for example, to help users where there are bottlenecks, such as classification of goods and services. We’re also looking at a tool that can help identify potential conflicts on absolute and relative grounds.

Cooperation is key in this area. I recently represented BOIP at the EUIPO Management Board and Budget Committee (MBBC) meetings in Alicante, Spain, and I explained that AI must receive top attention in the context of the EU Cooperation Program. EUIPO is heavily investing in AI solutions and providing these to member states through the EU Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN).

For example, we know that 10 percent of Benelux applications are duplicates of EU applications. So, if both Offices are using image recognition, it would be strange if the results were different.

We work very closely with EUIPO and are very happy with the cooperation. We also work well with WIPO, and we have bilateral relations with other EU member state offices.

None of us is an island. We’re all interconnected. We use many APIs with EUIPO, and we offer APIs to external partners, such as the Chamber of Commerce.

Do you see BOIP becoming more involved in patent administration and policy?
We already play a role in the field of patents since we own the Benelux Patent Platform for national applications in the three Benelux countries and we work in close cooperation with the national patent offices of those countries. We support the national authorities at that level. And, of course, we work with them on campaigns, webinars, and events—it’s an example of our holistic approach.

As for more responsibilities for BOIP in the field of IP, this is something that is solely in the hands of the political authorities, and nobody knows what the future will hold in this respect. It’s a fact that BOIP has been pretty successful over the past 55 years, with a reliable institutional framework, a solid financial situation, diplomatic privileges, a strong knowledge base, sound IT expertise, etc.

What do you think will be the key trends and developments in IP in Europe over the next decade from both a policy and an administrative perspective?
From an administrative perspective, data and data security will become a bigger concern as we use more digital tools: a strong data strategy is therefore high on the agenda with BOIP 2030. Another priority will be the sustainability of IP offices as public bodies, which means good governance and social responsibility.

Overall, IP is still underused by businesses. Only 10 percent of undertakings have some IP rights, so 90 percent need to be informed.

I predict there will be more demand for tailored services. The age of standardized services is over. As an IP Office, we won’t provide as much general advice. We need to be more adaptable to specific situations. We need to be more open, less top-down.

That could include looking at fees. But fees are a matter for the Administrative Council, not for the Office. There’s an opening to look at fees to achieve specific goals. For example, you could ask: should companies that are established and have had a trademark for 10 years or more be able to subsidize new entrants through higher renewal fees? That could be an option.

Designs are a forgotten side of IP. They’re part of creativity, and we’re good at design in the Benelux. Should we reduce fees to make design rights more accessible and ensure they’re a simple means to get protection?

Do you think entrepreneurs don’t understand IP, or is there an anti-IP feeling?
It’s true there’s some debate about whether IP is still relevant in a sharing economy, and whether the idea of ownership is outdated. That’s an interesting debate. But the fact is we live in a knowledge-based economy, and we need to keep investing in innovation and creativity—and the number of IP filings keeps increasing. We’re seeing a 10 percent increase in Benelux trademark applications this year as compared to the same period of 2024, and an increase in registered design applications, too.

So, there’s still a lot of interest in IP, even if there’s some skepticism. It’s a question of pedagogy: we have to explain how IP can help and convince the public that it is useful for business and society. I always take a glass half full perspective!

I should mention i-DEPOT here, which is the perfect tool for trade secrets. I think it’s successful because it’s very simple, cheap, and accessible 24/7. The functionalities are relevant to business, and it’s possible to couple your i-DEPOT with a non-disclosure agreement to share with an investor or partner. Some people use it as a digital lab journal to record steps in the innovation process and some for copyright reasons.

The recent Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness highlighted the importance of innovation and IP in delivering sustainable economic growth and development in Europe. What role do you think IP offices should play in promoting a supportive environment for innovation?
Personally, I was very happy with the Draghi report. I hope it’ll be a wake-up call for Europe, and the geopolitical context reinforces that. It’s clear we need to work on EU competitiveness, and I’m fully convinced of the relevance of IP in that respect. IP is the foundation of innovation, the driver of business creativity, and a catalyst for entrepreneurship.

A good example of our role is that we have to put IP on the map of policymakers and entrepreneurs. We’re ambitious regarding public affairs and public relations to help BOIP be influential. PR used to be seen as a dirty word, but IP offices can shape discussions on competitiveness and make sure that IP is not forgotten.

Globally, 2024 was unique in that two treaties were adopted: the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge and the Design Law Treaty. That shows that it’s possible to move forward. But we have to be careful not to send the wrong signal. The European Commission is evaluating the EUTM Regulation, looking at the coexistence of rights, the offset mechanism, etc. The current system is a delicate balance, and we have to maintain it for competitiveness: if coexistence is jeopardized, that would be disastrous for SMEs, as there would be no tool to protect IP at a local level.

Reading the new INTA 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, it struck me that the EU, IP offices, and users all converge on how we see IP, but there’s still a lot to do.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest.

© 2025 International Trademark Association