{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
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).
[Guest post] Has G1/23 harmoniously "recast" the European law of enablement?
In the first of two posts on G1/23, Kat Friend Greg Corcoran provides an in-depth look at the recent Enlarged Board of Appeal on prior use in G1/23 and considers its practical implications
[Guest post] The patentability of prohibited practices in the field of AI
Katfriends Andreas Engel (Heidelberg University) and David Faber (Gramm, Lins & Partner) introduce to the readers of the IPKat the key arguments of their article recently published in ZGE/IPJ (open access, in German, with further references) on the patentability of AI practices prohibited under Article 5 EU AI Act.
TDM exceptions (not just the three-step test) don’t allow all unlicensed AI development
As autumn settles in and leaves begin to fall, one thing stays firmly in place: the judicial, policy, and academic focus on the intersection of AI development and copyright.
The HCO in Epirus – Next Stop: Ioannina!
As part of the event series “Copyright in Our Lives”, an educational seminar was held in Ioannina on Thursday, October 9, 2025, for General Education teachers of the Regional Directorate of Primary Education of Ioannina.
Global fight against e-commerce fakes: The EUIPO, OLAF, and international stakeholders share knowledge and expertise
As the global e-commerce market continues to grow [1], the threat of counterfeits and intellectual property violations has become a major concern for businesses, public authorities, and consumers alike. On 7 and 8 October, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) co-organised a two-day event at the EUIPO premises in Alicante, Spain, to tackle this pressing issue.
Opening Ceremony for the 14th CIPF & Awarding Ceremony for the 25th WIPO-CNIPA Award for Chinese Outstanding Patented Invention & Industrial Design Held in Dalian
On October 13, the 14th China International Patent Fair (CIPF) opened in Dalian under the theme "Patent Commercialization and Utilization Empower Innovative Development." Gold medals for the 25th WIPO-CNIPA Award for Chinese Outstanding Patented Invention & Industrial Design were presented during the opening ceremony.
On the day of Inauguration, MOIP Embarks on Global Cooperation with WIPO
The Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) announced that a high-level bilateral meeting was held in Seoul with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)* on October 1, 2025—the inauguration day of MOIP. MOIP Acting Minister MOK Sungho and WIPO Director General Daren TANG discussed various measures to strengthen global cooperation.
Commissioner of Patents guidance update regarding computer-implemented inventions
On 14 October 2025, IP Australia updated the guidelines in our Patent Manual of Practice and Procedures and has sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
The HCO in Epirus – Arta
With strong engagement and participation from educators, the first in a series of three events on “Copyright in Our Lives” took place on Wednesday, October 8, 2025 in Epirus. The event was organized by the Directorate of Primary Education of Arta, in collaboration with the HCO, the E.VI.E., and the Holy Metropolis of Arta.
Registering a Food Brand as a Trade Mark
Before launching a new food product, it is important to (a) check that you are free to use the proposed branding without infringing anyone else’s rights, and then (b) secure your own trade mark protection to add value to your brand for the future. Below is a step-by-step guide outlining the key steps and issues to consider to best protect your food brand in Australia and in your export markets:
CNIPA Deputy Commissioner Meets with Roche's Chairman of the Board of Directors
Recently, Lu Pengqi, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), met in Beijing with Severin Schwan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Roche Holding Ltd.
Guide to Trademark Renewal in Malaysia
In Malaysia, trademark protection is a cornerstone for businesses to secure brand value and strengthen market competitiveness. While registration grants robust legal rights, these rights last for only a limited term and must be renewed. This guide offers a comprehensive overview of Malaysia’s trademark renewal process—covering how to calculate validity periods, when to file, steps for missed deadlines, fee structures, special considerations during transfers or amendments, and leveraging the Kangxin IP Platform for efficient management.
Guidance for Foreign Applicants – Trademark Fast Track Options in Brazil
As of August 7, 2025, the Brazilian IP Office (INPI) began offering Fast Track Options for Trademark Analysis. This new procedure allows certain trademark registration applications and related petitions to be processed more quickly.
{{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
