{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
Intellectual Property Office fees to increase from April 2026
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is increasing fees for patents, trade marks and designs from 1 April 2026, subject to parliamentary approval .
High Court of London – Case: Getty Images (US) Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd
On 4 November 2025, the High Court of London issued a ruling in which Stability AI, creator of the Stable Diffusion model, won a significant legal battle against Getty Images.
Our achievements highlighted in the 2024–25 Annual Report
In 2024–25, IP Australia continued to strengthen Australia’s intellectual property (IP) landscape.
Wednesday Whimsies
It is this time of the week where we bring you the latest news from the IP world.
Getty Images v Stability: Long-awaited judgment rejects majority of Getty's claim
In one of the most anticipated judgments of the past few years, the High Court of England & Wales has handed down its judgment in Getty Images v Stability AI. The Court (judgment delivered by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE) has for the most part rejected Getty's claim, finding only a "historic and extremely limited" trade mark infringement. We will, I expect, be publishing more on the case over the coming weeks, but this is this Kat's initial reaction.
Will change people's habits with fireproof box
Most Norwegians have many gadgets at home that run on batteries, and many of us store used batteries in a potentially flammable way before handing them in for recycling. The inventors of the battery box want to do something about that.
ACT sends letter to the European Commission on online piracy of live content
The ACT (Association of Commercial Television in Europe and Video on Demand Services in Europe) has sent a letter to the European Commission emphasizing the importance of protecting content broadcast live by media, sports, and cultural organizations.
Author remuneration in the streaming age – exploitation rights and fair remuneration rules in the EU
The shift from linear to on-demand consumption of copyright content on platforms like Spotify, Netflix and YouTube raises the question of whether authors and performers receive a fair share of streaming revenues. While industry rights holders have the opportunity to control access to protected content, it is often not the creators themselves who benefit from growing streaming revenue.
EUIPO launches new AI-powered tool to screen trade marks before filing
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has launched ‘Early TM Screening’, a new standalone pre-assessment tool designed to help users identify potential issues with their prospective trade mark. This innovative online tool makes the filing journey smoother, simpler and less error-prone through early detection of problems that could lead to refusal of a trade mark, thus helping users safeguard their financial investment.
BABEK v Iceland: Court of Appeal dismisses invalidity challenge
In the second of two cases handed down by the England & Wales Court of Appeal on 23 October 2025, both of which concerned issues around the presentation of marks on the register, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision not to declare a proprietor's mark invalid. It will give something of a sigh of relief to proprietors that have specified colours on trade marks without also specifying Pantone/Hex codes. The other decision, Thom Browne v adidas, was considered in this post.
Basmati saga continues as New Zealand upholds rejection of certification mark
Last month proved to be a busy period for decisions about the registrability of marks comprising the term BASMATI. On the 30th of October, the High Court of New Zealand handed down its judgment in the case APEDA v Commissioner of Trade Marks [2025] NZHC 3264 (the decision hasn't been published online yet, but readers can find a copy here), confirming that BASMATI can't be registered as a certification mark if it excludes producers outside of India.
[Guest Post] Has G1/23 harmoniously recast the European law of enablement?
In the second of two posts on G1/23, Kat Friend Greg Corcoran provides an in-depth look at this recent Enlarged Board of Appeal on public prior use and considers its practical implications.
Adapting the old to the bold: Saudi Arabia’s first AI copyright case
On 23 September 2025, the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) issued a decision that quietly placed the Kingdom on the global AI-law map. A user was fined SAR 9,000 (≈ USD 2,400) for modifying another person’s photograph with an AI tool and publishing it without permission. Reported as the first publicly known AI-related copyright fine in Saudi Arabia, the case did not rely on a novel regulatory instrument but rather on the Copyright Law (Royal Decree M/41), a statute conceived long before generative models or deep-learning datasets existed.
Universities in High-Income Economies Remain the Most Connected Globally, While Universities in Hong Kong, China, the Netherlands, the United States, Qatar, Iran, Brazil, And South Africa Drive Regional Progress
The Global Innovation Index (GII) tracks how economies perform in innovation — from research investment to technology diffusion. Within its Business Sophistication pillar, the Innovation Linkages sub-pillar captures a critical question: how effectively do universities, firms, and governments collaborate to turn ideas into impact?
Unlocking the Commercial Value of Filing in Australia
When advising clients on where to extend patent protection, major markets such as the US, Europe, and Japan often dominate the conversation. But one jurisdiction that consistently offers high strategic value at relatively low cost is Australia.
Contract Registration with the BPTO: New Rules Make the Process More Efficient and Transparent
On October 28, 2025, the BPTO (Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office) published Rules No. 34 and 35, which update and replace Rules No. 26 and 27 of 2023. These regulations govern the procedures and guidelines for recording license agreements, assignments of industrial property rights, technology transfer and franchise agreements. The new rules will take effect on December 12, 2025 (45 days after publication) and include several important updates.
Federal Circuit tells petitioners that IPR denials are unreviewable regardless of reliance on agency guidance in place at time of filing
On Thursday (November 6, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit threw out three parallel mandamus petitions challenging the non-institution of IPRs or vacatur of decisions to institute IPRs. One of the decisions, In re Motorola Solutions (PDF), was declared precedential; the others reference it. The common element of all three was a constitutional claim centered around their reliance on USPTO policy under the previous Director (Kathi Vidal) that had meanwhile (in February 2025) been rescinded by then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart. The Federal Circuit determined that this fell far short of what would entitle any of the petitioners to the institution of an IPR (even if already granted). There was no property right because the Vidal Memorandum did not guarantee any particular outcome, much less when considering that it constituted only interim guidance.
Turning Trade Mark Objections into Opportunities: A Business Case for Ex Parte Hearings
The most common kinds of objections received during the examination of an Australian trade mark application are earlier similar trade marks, or that the trade mark is insufficiently distinctive for registration. There are usually several ways to overcome such objections. However, there are fewer avenues in responding to a distinctiveness objection than there are in seeking to overcome any earlier similar trade marks.
USPTO Expedited Patent Examination Changes - Give and Take
The USPTO has made a couple of announcements of interest to applicants seeking to expedite examination of their patent applications.
Samsung v. ZTE motion-to-dismiss hearing, and two new UPC decisions
On Thursday afternoon (Pacific Time), Judge Martínez-Olguín held (via Zoom) the motion-to-dismiss hearing and will issue a written order soon. Samsung’s counsel focused largely on allegations involving then-ZTE employee Mang Zhu (for her background, see August 11, 2025 ip fray interview). ZTE’s counsel stressed that the alleged deficiencies of Samsung’s complaint involve both an insufficient connection with California and a general failure to state a viable antitrust claim under the case law of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where since FTC v. Qualcomm (2020) no comparable case has gone forward. One precedent from the Northern District of California that the judge wanted Samsung to differentiate its complaint from is the July 8, 2022 dismissal of Lenovo v. IPCom (Justia link).
{{item.basicTitle}}
Technology Domain
Publication Date
-
{{item.basicTitle}}
{{item.basicDescription.slice(0,250)}}{{item.basicDescription.length>250?"...":""}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
{{enterWhos.enText}} Trademark Registration
Registration process
Requirements
| Required information | Required documents |
|---|---|
|
No document required |
Please note:
- {{item}}
-
Principle of trademark protection:Principle of trademark protection;
-
Classification system of goods and services:Nice Classification; multi-class application is available;
-
Requirements for trademark use:The applicant shall provide evidence showing use of the trademark on the designated goods/services. Evidence of use for goods includes but not limited to: product photos printed with trademarks, product packaging, product labels, exhibition pictures, brochures, sales contracts and other purchase documents and information; but advertisements or media reports cannot be used as evidence of effective use. Evidence for services includes but not limited to: the brochures printed with trademarks, web page introductions, contracts for provision of services and other documents.
It is important to preserve the evidence when use a trademark in United States; otherwise the trademark will be partially or totally invalidated over the designated goods and services for not submitting sufficient mark use evidence during the stage of submitting the statement of use. -
An application for trademark registration shall be filed before the U.S. Intellectual Property Office (USTPO), and there must be a basis for filing application in the United States. There are mainly three types:(1)"Intended Use": This basis applies to cases where the trademark has not been used in the United States at the time of filing the application for registration. Based on "intention to use" to file an application for trademark registration, the application can be submitted directly without providing evidence of trademark use. However, when the official passes the trademark examination, an official notice will be issued requesting the applicant to submit evidence of use and the time of first use in the world and the United States in order to obtain a trademark registration certificate. If the trademark has not been used before it is approved for registration, the applicant may postpone the submission of the statement of use for a period of 6 months at a time, for a total of 5 times. If the use evidence cannot be provided in the end, the trademark will be invalid.
(2)"Actual Use": This basis is applicable to the case where the trademark was already used in the United States when the application for registration was submitted. When filing an application for trademark registration on the basis of "already used", evidence of the use of the trademark in the United States and the earliest date of use shall be provided.
(3)"Registration in Other Countries": This basis is used when an application for registration of the same trademark has been submitted in the origin country and the applicant cannot provide mark use evidence in the United States for a short period of time. Application information (including designated goods/services) in the US application should be consistent with those in the application of origin country, and a copy of registration certificate in the origin country should be provided.
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
-
{{item.title.slice(0,60)}}{{item.title.length>60?"...":""}}
{{item.date}}
-
{{item.haha}}
- {{ipType[item.ipType]}}
-
Ready to Manage Your IP Portfolio Smarter?
From AI-powered trademark search to marketplace monitoring — the Kangxin IP Platform turns knowledge into results.
Explore the Kangxin IP Platform
Put your IP knowledge into practice with our comprehensive suite of AI-powered tools.
Disclaimer: We will do our best to present you with as complete and accurate information as
possible.
However, due to the limited frequency of content updates in some countries, all content is for reference
only and has no legal effect.
Jane Chen
