As companies and brands operate globally on a regular basis, trademark disputes increasingly depend on full, accurate multilingual documentation. 

One recent example of the importance of linguistic compliance was a decision involving Wise Payments – a financial technology company focused on global money transfers and Business Finance – and Portuguese property developer Host Wise, where the failure to provide a translation derailed the latter’s opposition to a trademark before its merits were fully considered.

The case revolved around Host Wise’s attempt to block Wise Payments’ “Wise” trademark at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Host Wise had previously registered trademark information in both English and Portuguese, but failed to provide the English translation of the specific services covered by its own “Host Wise” mark, despite an earlier deadline to do so.

The EUIPO also noted that the Portuguese trademark database showed only the trademark classes, not the underlying services, which meant the scope of protection could not be properly assessed. 

This distinction is relevant because trademark classes are broad categories, but the services listed within those classes define what the mark actually protects. If an accurate translation of those services is not provided, a trademark opposition may fail for procedural reasons before the substantive arguments are even reached.

The EUIPO’s decision is a clear example of how language compliance affects intellectual property strategy. Under EUIPO rules, when proceedings are conducted in English and key trademark information is not already available in that language, opponents must file the necessary translation.

This case offers three practical lessons for companies managing multilingual branding or filing trademark disputes across borders.

1. Translated documents should be complete, not approximate. 
2. Translations should cover the specific goods and services at issue, not just high-level class descriptions. 
3. Translation deadlines in opposition proceedings should be treated as hard deadlines, because missing one can weaken or even entirely eliminate a claim.