{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
New minister appointed with responsibility for intellectual property
The Intellectual Property Office CEO has welcomed the new minister.
Mac v Q Deck - an object lesson in unregistered designs
Katfriend Rebecca Newman (Addleshaw Goddard) comments on the recent decision in J Mac Safety Systems Ltd v Q Deck Safety Systems Ltd [2025] EWHC 2241 (Pat), where a claim for infringement of UK unregistered design right succeeded.
EUIPO-AECM meeting: A new chapter for IP-backed finance
On 25 and 26 September 2025, the EUIPO hosted in its premises in Alicante the Board meeting of the European Association of Guarantee Institutions (AECM). The agenda featured a workshop bringing together high-level representatives from the EU institutions and AECM members (public banks and guarantee institutions) to discuss the latest developments and challenges in the field of IP-backed finance.
Bartz v. Anthropic – $1.5 Billion Settlement for Use of Pirated Books in AI Training
The Bartz v. Anthropic case began in 2024, when authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson filed a class-action lawsuit against the artificial intelligence company Anthropic. The plaintiffs alleged that the company collected over 7 million pirated books from websites such as LibGen and Books3 and used them to train the Claude AI system, violating copyright law.
Now you see me: When partial visibility of a design is enough – and when not
Visibility is a key aspect of design protection. But is it enough if the design is only partially visible during normal use? This question is explored in a recent judgment of the General Court (T-331/24).
From oil to gemstones: Our shifting understanding of the value of data
This year, CIPA Congress is tackling all things AI. Together with Ben Hoyle (Hoyle IP Services Ltd), Coreena Brinck (Two IP) and Julio Fonseca (ASML), this Kat has the pleasure of speaking on a panel at Congress focused on the intersection between data, IP and AI, "Data is the new oil", chaired by Greg Corcoran (Greg Corcoran IP). For the avoidance of doubt, the following are this Kat's own views and do not represent the views of the rest of the panel.
Use of AI in the patent industry: The spectre of hallucination
Last time, this Kat covered some practical steps on how to ensure client confidentiality when using AI tools (IPKat). In this post, we will look at a second concern many patent attorneys have with generative AI, its propensity to simply make up facts and present them as truth. What are the risks that the output from an AI will include fabricated facts, and how can patent attorneys using AI tools understand and mitigate this risk?
10th Anti-Scam Network Meeting: Strengthening the fight against misleading invoices
The EUIPO hosted the 10th meeting of the Anti-Scam Network at the Alicante headquarters on 2 October, bringing together IP offices, user associations, law enforcement, and international partners to share best practices and coordinate action against misleading payment requests targeting intellectual property (IP) users.
EUIPO expresses solidarity following the earthquake in the Philippines and grants extension of time limits
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) expresses its deepest condolences and solidarity with the people of the Philippines following the recent earthquake
Revisiting the 2025 GII Ranking of World’s Top 100 Innovation Clusters: New Venture Capital Deals Metric
The Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025 ranks the world’s top 100 innovation clusters, emphasizing their important contribution to national innovation systems.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
If September was the month of back-to-school, the Kats certainly did their homework. Here’s what you missed last week:
Use of AI in the patent industry: Solving the confidentiality problem
As patent attorneys, we are constantly told that AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to disrupt the profession, and that we must all leap onto the AI bandwagon or be left behind. However, when this Kat talks to fellow patent professionals away from the LinkedIn and conference-circuit hype, it appears that the majority of the profession remain sceptical. Indeed, whatever the AI patent tool providers may tell you, many patent attorneys are not using any form of AI in their daily practice.
Observatory plenary meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2025
On 30 September and 1 October 2025, the Observatory of the EUIPO held its plenary meeting - an annual milestone event to reflect on the ongoing work and engage with stakeholders to shape future activities.
European Union seizes 112 million counterfeit items worth €3.8 billion in 2024
In 2024, authorities across the European Union seized over 112 million counterfeit items, with an estimated retail value of €3.8 billion. These figures, published by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), reflect the ongoing strength of coordinated enforcement efforts across customs, police, and market surveillance authorities in all EU Member States.
Judge takes novel approach to the novelty test in Australia
In Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Virbac (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 1179 (“Abbey”), an Australian Judge of the Federal Court, Jackman J[1], has departed from the prior approach for considering a class of potentially novelty destroying documents, potentially simplifying how this type of prior art will be treated in future cases.
The potential role of alternative dispute resolution for intellectual property disputes in Qatar
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become an essential tool for resolving IP disputes, offering faster, cost-effective and flexible procedures that enhance commercial predictability while reducing litigation burdens. However, ADR alone does not guarantee effective access to justice, a core principle of Sustainable Development Goal 16.3.
EPO-CNIPA Joint Communiqué on Extension of PCT ISA Pilot
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) pilot programme between the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) will continue until 30 November 2031. Nationals and residents of the People's Republic of China will continue to have the option to select the EPO as their International Searching Authority (ISA).
She Built This: Empowering women through IP
Welcome to IP Australia. We’re passionate about helping all Australians protect the value of their ideas, and supporting women to make informed decisions about their unique and valuable intellectual property (IP).
What do sex toys and patent law have in common?
A stimulating new decision from the Australian Federal Court explores the intersection of sex toys and patent law, highlighting important issues regarding the construction and infringement of "when used" claims, as well as clarity and sufficiency of claims limited by result under Australian law.
Fake toys, real harms: experts warn parents of dangerous fake toys
New Intellectual Property Office campaign warns buyers of major health and safety risks.
{{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
