{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
KIPO Holding Bilateral Meetings with 8 ASEAN States on Intellectual Property
Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) held bilateral meetings with eight ASEAN member states* and Timor-Leste (as an observer) on the sidelines of the 8th ROK-ASEAN Heads of Intellectual Property Offices Meeting, from September 1 to 3, 2025 in Seoul, Republic of Korea.
ROK-ASEAN Adopted the “Joint Statement on Intellectual Property Cooperation”
Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) held the 8th ROK-ASEAN Heads of Intellectual Property Offices Meeting on September 1 in Seoul, Republic of Korea, with the delegations from the ten ASEAN member states, as well as the delegation from Timor-Leste in observer capacity which is currently working to establish its own IP office.
Global Innovation Index 2025: Switzerland Retains Top Position
Switzerland, Sweden, the United States, South Korea and Singapore lead the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025 ranking.
Key Changes to Trademark Regulations
important updates regarding legal and regulatory changes in Tanzania and Qatar
Enduroco v Bus IP Holdings: An uphill battle against claim interpretation, support and the limits of post-acceptance claim amendments in Australia
If you ever feel like you have faced an uphill battle at the patent office, consider how Bus IP Holdings Pty Ltd must feel.
[Guest Post] A sound decision: short jingle can be registered as a trade mark, says EU General Court
The IPKat is pleased to publish a guest post by Katfriend Edoardo Cesarini (GR Legal), discussing a recent decision of the EU General Court involving the trade mark registration of a short tune.
Friday Fantasies
It was back-to-school week for this Kat, but she still found time to sniff around for the latest IP news that might interest our readers. The calendar is quickly filling up with events to discuss recent legal developments, as well as opportunities to provide feedback on government consultations.
EU and Norway agree on practices for trademarks in bad faith and contrary to public policy or morality
The Norwegian Industrial Property Office and the EUIPO have developed joint practice documents (CP13 and CP14) that clarify how trademark applications made in bad faith are assessed, and how marks that are contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality are interpreted. The aim is to enhance predictability, legal certainty and clarity for both applicants and case managers.
Signs newly notified under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention – published 31 March 2025
Since 2009, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has published newly notified signs online every 6 months, at the end of March and September.
Possible trade mark scam alert!
A number of our clients have recently received an unsolicited email 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.
The upcoming Mio/konektra judgment: What the CJEU should decide regarding the copyright infringement test
Back in the spring, The IPKat reported on the then fresh Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in the Mio/konektra joined referrals.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Staying Sharp on IP: Your Weekly Update from the Kats.
In-Depth Analysis of Kuaishou’s Trademark Strategy: Global Vision and Localized Practice
Kuaishou Technology, one of the two giants in China’s short video industry, demonstrates its core competitiveness through its development trajectory and data performance
Keeping up with Belgian patent litigation: Year case law review 2024 and early 2025
While many patent enthusiasts have kept their gaze firmly fixed on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), the IPKat’s friends at Stibbe (in the form of Philippe Campolini, Louis Bidaine, Anya Murphy, Mari Muzashvili and Kate Criel) have once again turned their focus to Belgium. After all, the relevance of national case law can not be overlooked, especially since many of the UPC’s judges honed their expertise in domestic courtrooms. True to tradition, Stibbe’s IP team has compiled a carefully curated overview of Belgian patent rulings from 2024 and early 2025.
Five things patents customers must do for the new One IPO service
The new One IPO patents service will be launching soon. There are five things you must do now to get ready for the launch of the new service.
Misleading scam emails targeting IP applicants and rights holders
The Intellectual Property Office of Ireland is aware of Irish companies receiving emails from Registered Trademark Agents in relation to European Trade Mark applications.
Life Sciences Strategy Summit on IP & Exclusivity returns to Munich with IPKat readers’ discount
As it has become somewhat of a tradition, the Katfriends at Kisaco Research wish to inform IPKat Readers that their Life Sciences Strategy Summit on IP & Exclusivity returns to Munich this October (13–15 October 2025, Infinity Hotel) and promises to be bigger, broader, and more commercially relevant than ever before.
anzania introduces Mandatory trade mark recordation system for imported goods
On 1 September 2025, the Fair Competition Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice announcing the implementation of a mandatory trade mark recordation system for all goods imported into mainland Tanzania.
Silence is golden – or at least does not affect trade mark rights
In trade mark law, silence - or rather inaction - can determine the fate of exclusive rights. In Lunapark Scandinavia (C-452/24), the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) has recently clarified that national courts cannot apply non-harmonised national defences relating to inaction. The decision is a reminder that, while EU Member States enjoy some room to manoeuvre in procedural matters, the substantive limits of trade mark protection are strictly harmonised at the EU level.
[Guest post] Eight Mile Style sues Meta for Shady-ness of Eminem’s early catalogue
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following post by Katfriend Georgia Jenkins (University of Liverpool), on a lawsuit recently filed in the US concerning protectability of styles, notably Eminem’s.
{{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
