{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
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.
[Guest post] Revisiting the Sylvanian Family Drama: settled and silenced (forever)?
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following post by Katfriend Georgia Jenkins (University of Liverpool), providing an update on the Sylvanian Family Drama case.
Update to trade mark practice guidelines
IPONZ has updated its guidelines about amendments to trade mark applications.
Scandalous trade marks in Australia, the US and UK: bad taste, booze, and the limits of outrage
When Pingers walked into the room (or more accurately, onto the Trade Marks Register), examiners at IP Australia immediately blushed. “Surely this is slang for MDMA, how scandalous!” But the Registrar wasn’t convinced. On 18 August 2025, the Delegate in Re Volstead Pty Ltd [2025] ATMO 164 decided that although Pingers for spirits was in bad taste, it was not scandalous under s 42(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
Space is challenging, IP protection doesn’t have to be.
Space is a technically challenging environment to work in. Developing satellite components and deploying satellites involves high risk and massive investment in research and development activities to create robust systems that can remain operational for years in the punishing environment of space.
Understanding technology regulation through history: insights from the legal history of the printing press and copyright in early modern England
Studying legal history is crucial for understanding both the past and present of technology regulation, as past societies confronted challenges similar to those we face today. However, the scarcity of such studies in the existing literature highlights the need for a deeper exploration of how technology has historically shaped the legal framework.
Guide to Trademark Renewal in the United States
Trademarks, as intangible assets of a business, play a crucial role in maintaining brand identity and securing market exclusivity. In the United States, understanding the validity period, renewal process, and related considerations for trademarks is essential for businesses. This guide provides a detailed overview of the trademark renewal process in the U.S., helping businesses effectively manage their trademark rights.
IPOPHL welcomes Jollibee as first registered well-known mark in the Philippines
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) declared on 10 August 2025 the Jollibee logo mark [W-PH-2025-000001] and the full image of Jollibee [W-PH-2025-000002] as the country’s first registered well-known marks under the newly launched Rules and Regulations for the Declaration and Creation of the Register of Well-Known Marks.
Mixue Ice Cream and Tea: From China’s Streets to Global Fast-Food Giant
MIXUEBINGCHENG Co., Ltd ("MIXUE") started out life as a modest ice cream stall in the streets of Zhengzhou in China’s Henan Province in 1997. Today, it’s a household name across China and beyond, serving up ice cream, fruit drinks, teas, and coffee, to millions every day.
Ferrari successfully defends its TESTAROSSA registration: lessons for us mere mortals
In 2015 a German toy company called Autec AG applied to revoke Ferrari’s registration on the basis that it had not been put to continuous use for a period of 5 years. The last Ferrari bearing the name had been sold in 1996, yet the mark was registered in 2006 in class 12 for “‘Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water; land motor vehicles, automobiles, structural and replacement parts, components and accessories therefor all included in this class; brakes, engines, tyres for land motor vehicles included in this class; bicycles, motor bicycles, vans and trucks”. Ferrari argued, unsuccessfully at first instance, that the mark had been used on second-hand vehicle sales and for spare parts.
IPEP Forum 2024 Report Now Available
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is pleased to announce that the official report from the IPEP Forum 2024 is now available.
New EUIPN website launched
The @European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is pleased to announce the launch of the newly redesigned EUIPN website, featuring a fresh look and several key improvements aimed at improving user experience and providing better access to information.
IP dialogue to resume between Switzerland and India
On 26 August 2025, Switzerland and India agreed to resume their dialogue on intellectual property (IP). The decision follows the conclusion of a free trade agreement between the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and India, which was signed on 24 March 2024 and comes into force on 1 October 2025. The dialogue will provide a platform to directly discuss and address challenges relating to IP without any red tape.
When your formulation IP is beyond compare (T 0722/24)
The recent decision in T 0722/24 is an example of effective patent strategy for a clinical stage product. Pharmaceutical innovation involves far more than identification of a therapeutic molecule. Over the course of a drug's life cycle, there is the need for considerable and lengthy further development, leading to new inventions. This innovation leads to new patentable inventions, including finding the therapeutically safe and effective dose, developing the pharmaceutical formulation, and finding precision medicine approaches.
{{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
