{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
CNIPA Deputy Commissioner Attends Release Event of WIPO's Ranking of World’s Top 100 Innovation Clusters in Hong Kong
Recently, Zhang Zhicheng, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), led a delegation to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) upon invitation to attend the release event of the ranking of the world's top 100 innovation clusters held by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) .
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.
Another brick in the wall - There is no special treatment for LEGO bricks under EU design law
The Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has once again been asked to clarify the contours of design protection under the Community Design Regulation (‘CDR’; now EU Design Regulation), this time in relation to one of the most famous modular products in the world: the LEGO bricks. In its recent decision in LEGO (C-211/24), the CJEU confirmed that LEGO bricks do not benefit from any special treatment under design law - despite the ‘LEGO exception’ in Art. 8(3) CDR. The Court’s reasoning not only confirms the standard applicable to the informed user when assessing the scope of protection but also offers helpful guidance on the interpretation of ‘special reasons’ under Art. 89 CDR, a provision that allows national courts, in exceptional cases, to refrain from granting enforcement measures.
Weibo’s Trademark Landscape: From China’s Social Media Giant to Global Intellectual Property Game
Sina Weibo, launched by Sina Corporation on August 14, 2009, stands as one of China’s most influential social media platforms.
All the law is not in a book – the perils of overreach
These are the only stage directions that the lawyer’s office warrants in Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge: a desk, nothing more, nothing less. The law, after all, is a simple thing that can be understood in black and white. Either something is lawful or it is not.
WIPO Global Innovation Index 2025: Switzerland, Sweden, US, the Republic of Korea and Singapore Top Ranking; China Enters Top 10; Innovation Investment Growth Slows
Switzerland, Sweden, the United States of America (US), the Republic of Korea and Singapore top the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025 ranking, followed by the United Kingdom, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark and China, which breaks into the top 10 for the first time. Meantime, slowing growth in innovation investments is clouding the innovation forecast, the report found.
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
{{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
