{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
Renaming Nigeria’s National Theatre: Issues in Law, IP, and Heritage
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following post by Katfriend Seun Lari-Williams (PhD researcher in the Government and Law Research Group in the Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp) on the legal implications of renaming the National Theatre in Nigeria.
IDDQD and Royal Mail v Codeberry: Claim succeeds in addresses database claim
In IDDQD Ltd v Codeberry & Smith, Royal Mail Group Ltd v Codeberry & Smith [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch) (not available on BAILII but published by 8 New Square here), the High Court has considered a claim for database right and copyright infringement in databases relating to addresses in the UK. The court found infringement, including by the individual director/owner, showing there may still be life in the practice of including individual defendants in litigation.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
If last week’s posts were any indication, Artificial Intelligence has been busy testing our human intelligence. It felt like the digital age sat us all down for a surprise exam, one we took entirely through our screens, only stepping away for some guitar riffs, a bite of wine and cheese and the occasional patent case. Here’s what you might have missed while The Kats were busy proving that humans still have the upper hand
CNIPA Deputy Commissioner Meets with Vice President of INTERPAT in Beijing
Recently, Hu Wenhui, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), met in Beijing with John Conway, Vice President of INTERPAT, and representatives of its member companies.
adidas v Thom Browne: Court of Appeal upholds invalidity of three-stripe position marks
Two Court of Appeal judgments were handed down on the same day last week, both covering registrability of trade marks, with the leading judgments in both being given by Lord Justice Arnold. They were in the cases of Thom Browne Inc & Anor v adidas AG [2025] EWCA Civ 1340 and Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1341. This post addresses the Thom Browne v adidas decision, setting out the reasoning in some detail. I will follow up with a post on the BABEK v Iceland decision separately.
Sufficiency at the priority date: A study protocol is not "the same" as a therapeutic effect invention (T0883/23)
Therapeutic inventions are generally not considered sufficiently disclosed absent supporting data. The recent decision in T 0883/23 found that this applies both at the priority date and the filing date of the patent. In this case, the priority document described the dose finding study protocol, whilst the patent claimed and provided data supporting the selection of a particular dosage regimen. The Board of Appeal found that the lack of data in the priority document meant that the "same invention" test for priority was not met and that the priority claim was therefore invalid.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
It’s been another exciting week on the IPKat! Alongside the classic domains of intellectual property, last week brought a splash of cultural heritage and personality rights. Here’s a quick look at what you may have missed.
Shen Changyu Holds Bilateral Meeting with SAKPATENTI Chairman Soso Giorgadze
Recently, Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), held a bilateral meeting in Shanghai with Soso Giorgadze, Chairman of the National Intellectual Property Center of Georgia (SAKPATENTI), who was visiting China to attend the 22nd Shanghai International Intellectual Property Forum. The two sides exchanged views on the latest developments in intellectual property (IP) work in both countries, cooperation on geographical indications (GIs) and other issues of mutual interest.
UPDATE: Possible trade mark scam alert!
As recently reported, a number of our clients have recently received an unsolicited email allegedly from Philip John Muir or John David Paton of NRH Legal Limited trying to secure instructions to register their business name in New Zealand. The full text of the email is set out below.
SA Patent Reform Underway: A Call for Balanced, Modern IP Laws
South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law (SAIIPL) has made a formal submission in response to the government’s planned reforms of the Patents Act and Designs Act. The submission welcomes the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (the dtic) and the CIPC’s consultative approach and argues for a balanced, internationally aligned framework that strengthens patent and design quality while safeguarding the public interest. Adams & Adams partner James Davies, who serves as President of SAIIPL, oversaw the submission process.
Tuesday Tiddlywinks
With autumnal dress adorning the trees throughout London's parks and the blanket of darkness cloaking the capital an hour earlier, spooky season is in full swing. And when spooky season is in full swing, it means that IP news and events are heating up. The AmeriKat is here with a selection of recent goings-on and upcoming events.
"Basmati" decision in Kenya disregards protection of unregistered trade marks
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal of Kenya dismissed the oppositions to six trade mark applications containing the words BASMATI RICE, on the grounds that the term is not a registered geographical indication in Kenya. This caught the attention of Katfriend Caroline Wanjiru Muchiri (University of Pretoria), who has been collaborating with this Kat on a project about geographical indications in Africa, and we decided to take a closer look at the judgment. Here's our thoughts on the decision in Agricultural and Processed Food Products Development Authority (APEDA) v Krish Commodities Limited [2025] KECA 1587.
CNIPA Deputy Commissioner Leads Delegation to Brazil and Argentina for Working Visits
Recently, Lu Pengqi, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), led a delegation to attend the 17th BRICS Heads of Intellectual Property Offices Meeting in Brazil, and paid working visits to the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) of Brazil and the National Institute of Industrial Property of Argentina.
The new CI GIs system and the use of AI in IP examination, at the October User Group Meeting’s and Liaison Meetings’ agenda
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has successfully hosted its biannual User Group Meeting (UGM) and Liaison Meetings (LMs) in October, bringing together stakeholders from across the intellectual property (IP) landscape to discuss key issues and contribute to the future of IP in Europe. The outcomes of these meetings help shape the EUIPO's work in the coming months and years, under its SP 20230. The UGM and LMs are part of a close relationship with IP users, which also included, just in October, the Observatory plenary on 30 Sept and 1 October, the Anti-Scam Network on 2 October and a bilateral meeting with APRAM on 20 October.
From peppers to watermelons: Navigating the "dynamic interpretation" of plant and animal patentability (T 2049/23)
The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 3/19 (Pepper) infamously performed a "dynamic interpretation" to exclude plants obtained by essentially biological processes. This dynamic interpretation amounted to a reversal of the EBA's previous affirmative answer in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II) to the exact same question in response to political pressure (see IPKat: Lessons in legal fudge from the EBA in Pepper (G3/19)). The "dynamic" nature of the interpretation meant that the EBA ordered a cut-off date from when G3/19 should be deemed to apply. Under G3/19, before 1 July 2017 (and the introduction of Rule 28(2)) plants or animals produced by essentially biological processes were not excluded from patentability, whilst any patent application filed after this date would fall under the exclusion introduced by G3/19. The political controversy over this issue and the lack of retroactive effect of G3/19 means that for some, the debate isn't yet over (T 2049/23 (Watermelon)).
As the AI bubble swells, Spotify’s ‘artist-first’ AI music product announcement might just be code for maximising shareholder value
It turns out that Spotify has even bigger plans than its recent integration within ChatGPT: its own rollout of ‘'artist-first' AI music products’. The AI products will be developed in collaboration with Sony Music Group, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, indie music representative Merlin, and independent digital music company Believe, with additional rightsholders and distributors involved in the future. Spotify contends that industry backing will ensure that ‘artists and songwriters’ are prioritised through voluntary ‘upfront agreements’ that create ‘new revenue agreements for rightsholders, artists, and songwriters’ focused on fair compensation and attribution. There will be ‘thoughtful AI guardrails’ that catapult artists and fans into a new AI-powered world of music connection.
K-Patents Go Global: Patent Filing by Koreans Increase Both Domestically and Abroad in the First Half of 2025
-MOIP and KIIP announce the intellectual property application trends for the first half of 2025. - -Continued increase of patent applications in advanced industries such as AI and secondary batteries. -
Patent linkage, data exclusivity and public health: approaches for reform
The COVID-19 Pandemic exposed the fragility of the global public health regime (N Jensen et al, ‘The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need for an equity-focused global health agenda’ (2021) 8 Humanit Soc Sci Commun 15.). Never before in history, we had a vaccine for an ongoing pandemic which the majority had no access to. Even prior to the pandemic, the global public health regime was showing signs of vulnerability manifested by the rising costs of medicines and public health expenditure levels, increased levels of legal monopolies exasperated by originator drug manufacturers activities and the widening gap between those who can afford medicines and therapeutic treatments, and those who can’t, even for those residing in developed countries (M El Said, ‘The Global IP Response to COVID-19 Pandemic: A Tale of Several Ironies?’ (2022) 19 MJIEL 79–91.).
Brussels Court of Appeal finds Dr Martens’ yellow stitching distinctive
On 30 September last, the Brussels Court of Appeal (CoA) decided that the pattern carved on Dr Martens’ soles and the yellow stitching connecting the upper leather to the sole are distinctive trade marks of Airwair International Ltd (Airwair). However, it did not find all signs used by Retail Distributions Concepts BV (Redisco) on its footwear to infringe Airwair’s trade marks under the Benelux Convention on IP (BCIP).
[Book Review] The Future of Geographical Indications: European and Global Perspectives
This is a review of the book, The Future of Geographical Indications: European and Global Perspectives (Edward Elgar, 2025), co-edited by Andrea Zappalaglio (University of Leeds) and Enrico Bonadio (City St George’s, University of London).
{{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
