{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
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.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Last week was a particularly prolific one on the IPKat, with insights from all around the world. Ready to catch up? Let’s set sail!
Friday Fantasies
Here's a rundown of all the fascinating events and opportunities this Kat has come across this week!
Patents make surprise appearance in UK consultation on precision breeding framework
Yesterday, the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published the results of their consultations about a proposed Precision Bred Plant Variety List for England. The feedback showed support for labelling to indicate the precision bred status of seeds and other plant reproductive material, and intriguingly, many responses also advocated that the variety list should provide transparency about patents, such as a requirement to disclose "any existing or pending patents".
Notional claim splitting: an Australian perspective on multiple priorities
Multiple priorities within a single claim are recognised under Article 4F of the Paris Convention, allowing different parts of a patent claim to benefit from distinct priority dates. While Europe has fully recognised multiple priorities within a single claim for many years, other jurisdictions, including Australia, have adopted a more restrictive approach.
Regional Launch of the Global Innovation Index 2025 in Riyadh Highlights the Arab Region’s Innovation Momentum
Riyadh, October 6, 2025 — The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hosted the regional unveiling of the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025 under the theme “2025 and Beyond: Fueling Economic Growth through Innovation.” The event, held at The Garage innovation hub, was co-organized by the Research, Development and Innovation Authority (RDIA) and the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP), in collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Museums of the Future and Copyright: Preservation of and access to cultural heritage in the age of AI
The seminar “Museums of the Future and Copyright: Preservation of and access to cultural heritage in the age of AI” took place successfully on 7 October 2025 at the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens.
Germany Trademark Renewal Guide
Maintaining your trademark in Germany is essential for protecting your brand assets and avoiding legal and financial risks. This guide covers key aspects of German trademark renewal: validity periods, application windows, remedies for missed deadlines, fee structures, renewal during transfers or changes of ownership, and portfolio management strategies.
Twitter (X) Trademark Strategy: Strategies, Challenges, and Future Prospects
In the digital age, social media platforms have become an indispensable part of people’s daily lives. Twitter, the social media giant symbolized by a blue bird, has captivated hundreds of millions of users worldwide since its launch in 2006 with its unique short-form content sharing and interactive communication style.
Instagram’s Trademark Strategy from a Global Perspective: Strategic Analysis and Challenges
Since its launch on October 6, 2010, Instagram has grown into one of the world’s most influential social media platforms. Developed by Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, this application gained rapid popularity with its unique photo-sharing feature and was acquired by Meta for $1 billion in 2012. As of March 2025, Instagram’s total registered users have surpassed 2 billion, with monthly active users stabilizing at around 1.5 billion (projected based on trends from Meta’s latest financial reports). Daily, the platform generates over 500 million pieces of content—including photos, videos, and Stories—spanning a wide range from personal life updates to brand marketing.
The party's over: EBA leaves late interveners stranded (G2/24)
This Kat has often observed that arriving late to the party can have its drawbacks. The best treats are gone and you risk being left behind when everyone suddenly decides to leave. A similar fate can befall a party in patent proceedings at the EPO. The Enlarged Board of Appeal has just provided a clear, if perhaps unwelcome, answer for latecomers. In G 2/24, the EBA has confirmed the existing case law that an appeal is over when the original parties withdraw, and an intervening party cannot single-handedly keep it going.
[Guest post] Time to redesigns designs: the UK government launches a wide-ranging consultation
Former GuestKat Darren Meale (Simmons & Simmons) is bringing IPKat readers an analysis of the recently launched public consultation on the potential review of the UK design and copyright system.
The emergence of “relevant ranges” and retroactive insufficiency in Australia and the UK
The concept of “relevant ranges”, discussed by the UK Supreme Court in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd [2020] UKSC 27 (Regeneron) and reinforced in Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA & Ors [2021] EWHC 57 (Pat) (Illumina), has recently emerged as a significant issue in Australian patent law. Kat friend Claire Gregg (Davies Collison Cave) is here to
[UPCKat] Lessons from the ebb and flow of the Insulet and EOFlow UPC dispute
Insulet and EOFlow clashed at the UPC over medical devices for insulin delivery, based on Insulet’s patent EP4201327. US-based Insulet developed and sold the “Omnipod 5” wearable insulin pump, while South-Korea-based EOFlow manufactured the “EOPatch” insulin pump. The Milan Central Division (CD) dismissed EOFlow’s revocation claim by default, but did not go so far as to find EOFlow infringing by default.
{{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
