{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
Expert report published on patent governance of agricultural gene editing
Following a workshop in London back in June, a report has now been published on patent governance of gene editing in agriculture. The participants included legal experts, policy advisors, IP practitioners, plant scientists, and regulatory officials (and also this Kat), who were brought together to discuss how patent policy could ensure that the use of gene editing techniques in agriculture contributes positively to global food security and environmental sustainability, with a focus on the UK, European Union, and Ukraine.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Grosso modo, here’s what the Kats were up to last week
UPC Court of Appeal confirms "lowered" test for imminent infringement in Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva PI appeal
Earlier this year, the UPCKat reported on what appeared to be a high bar to stop generic market entry set by the Lisbon Local Division in its 8 May 2025 ruling in Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva UPC_CFI_41/2025. The UPC Court of Appeal has now – three months later - reversed the LD Lisbon’s decision and granted the preliminary injunction (PI) sought by Boehringer Ingelheim (UPC_CoA_446/2025; UPC_CoA_520/2025, 13 August 2025).
Acceptance of Coexistence Agreements & Letters of Consent
Trademark Offices2 (“TMOs”) in some jurisdictions conduct ex officio examinations on relative grounds to assess potential conflicts between applied-for marks and earlier trademark registrations or applications based on likelihood of confusion
Have your say on proposed changes to Trade Marks Regulations
Public consultation open now on Trade Marks Amendments
When Patents Meet National Security: Compulsory Licensing in Aerospace and Defence
New Zealand’s aerospace sector is built on cutting-edge innovations, from rockets to autonomous aircraft. The public might have urgent need of some of these technologies during times of crisis like wars or pandemics. But what happens when critical tech is patented and not made available for public use when it’s critically needed? A legal mechanism called compulsory licensing applies here. As defined by the World Trade Organization (WTO), it allows a government to authorise use of a patented invention without the owner’s permission[1]. This is typically only used during emergencies or when the public interest demands it. It can be thought of as a safeguard, not a shortcut, ensuring access to vital technology when normal licensing fails. It’s a last-resort mechanism, but one that recognises intellectual property (IP) rights should never become a barrier to national security or public good.
Saturday Sundries
Please fasten your seatbelt, bring your seat in an upright position and pay attention to the following news from the IP world.
Walking the line between broad scope and lack of legal certainty (T 2387/22)
Functional features can be a productive route to patentability for certain types of invention, particularly in Europe where they are generally more accepted than in the US (IPKat). Functional limitations can allow for a broader scope of protection than claims defined purely by structure, making it harder for competitors to design around the invention. However, functional claiming is not without its pitfalls (IPKat). A significant risk of functional language is that it can create a high bar for proving infringement as well as the clarity and sufficiency requirements for patentability. The recent decision in T 2387/22 considered the patentability requirements for functional features defining the technical effects of new use of a known product.
White Paper on Trademark Protection in the Beauty Industry
With the booming development of the global beauty industry, competition among beauty brands worldwide has intensified. Trademarks, as the industry’s core intellectual property and key identifier of brand recognition, have become increasingly vital to protect. The global expansion of beauty brands has led to a rise in cross-border trademark conflicts, particularly in multilingual environments where similar names or designs may spark disputes.
Artificial Intelligence Law in Israel
Year in review
Representation before the EUIPO: Guidance for Norwegian representatives
Norwegian representatives may represent clients in design and trademark cases before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This applies to all stages of the application process, including appeal proceedings
No take-backs for Thaler on AI inventorship claim
Apparently Dr Stephen Thaler hasn't lost interest in generating patent case law in the UK. On Monday, the High Court of England & Wales handed down its judgment in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2025] EWHC 2202 (Ch), finding that Dr Thaler could not turn around and claim to be the inventor of the inventions that he previously claimed were actually invented by the AI machine, DABUS.
Venture Capital Metric Reshapes WIPO's World’s Top 100 Innovation Clusters Rankings
The addition of venture capital (VC) deal activity as a new metric in this year's WIPO Global Innovation Index (GII) Cluster study has reshaped the ranking with Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou overtaking Tokyo-Yokohama to claim the top spot and San Jose-San Francisco moving up three places to third position.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
We all love a good wrap-up, so here’s last week on the IPKat in a nutshell!
To block or not to block, that is the question – German Supreme Court on ad-blockers
A few topics ignite as much controversy at the intersection of copyright law and the digital economy as ad-blockers. Publishers see them as existential threats. Some even pose the question ‘Are ad-blockers killing the media?’. Users view them as indispensable shields against the clutter of online advertising. Providers of ad-blockers make a living on them. In this web of interests, the German Supreme Court (‘GSC’) recently published its long-awaited decision in Werbeblocker IV (case I ZR 131/23) dealing with the admissibility of ad-blockers.
No claim interpretation summersaults for the EPO (T 2027/23)
PatKat has been watching with keen interest as the first decisions applying the Enlarged Board of Appeal's recent ruling in G 1/24 have started to trickle in. The initial view from many commentators was that G1/24 "extinguished uncertainty" on the issue of claim interpretation. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA)'s choice of wording in its G1/24 that the description "shall always be consulted to interpret the claims" (emphasis added) left some of us wondering, this Kat included, how much G1/24 actually allowed a patentee to rely on the description for the purposes of claim interpretation. After all, it is perfectly possible to "consult" someone for their opinion, and then entirely ignore their view when making a decision...
Peddlageddon: Attempts to take down videos backfire with unjustified threats
Unjustified threats can cause many difficulties for the unwary. In a recent interim injunction application (Sledziewski & Anor v Persons Unknown & Anor [2024] EWHC 1955 (KB)) brought to restrain the sharing of videos on YouTube, a trade mark proprietor has got itself into a muddle over threats, feeding an online ‘pile-on’.
Important Developments in Trademark Proceduresand Deadlines
The notice calls on Applicants to submit any pending documents if their applications have not yet been published in the Industrial Property Bulletin, and to pay the prescribed fee and collect the registration certificate if all formalities have been completed, all within 90 days from the date of publication of the notice. The DOI shall accept the necessary documents for such pending applications, provided they are submitted on or before November 16, 2025. It is therefore strongly advised to ensure that any outstanding documentation is filed within this specified deadline.
Update to IPEP Access Terms: Enhanced Authentication Options for Rights Holders
The terms and conditions of the IP Enforcement Portal (IPEP) have been updated to streamline the access for rights holders and improve authentication procedures. These changes aim to make the platform more accessible while maintaining robust security standards.
Major Consultation to Strengthen UK’s £100 Billion Design Sector
A major Government consultation launched today by the Intellectual Property Office aims to modernise Britain’s design protection system and strengthen the UK’s position as a global design powerhouse.
{{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
