{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
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.
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.
{{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
