{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
WeChat’s Trademark Portfolio Analysis
Using statistical data from Kangxin IP Platform (eservice.kangxin.com), we analyze WeChat’s trademark application trends in China, the US, Japan, South Korea, and the EU.
Pinterest’s Trademark Puzzle: Global Strategy and Intellectual Property Game
Pinterest was founded in March 2010 in San Francisco, USA, by Ben Silbermann, Paul Sciarra, and Evan Sharp, initially launching as a platform for sharing visual inspiration. With its unique “puzzle-like” content model, Pinterest quickly gained traction worldwide. As of March 2025, its total registered users are projected to exceed 500 million, with monthly active users stabilizing at around 480 million (based on a growth trend from 463 million in April 2023)
New Zealand Trademark Renewal Guide
Trademark Renewal Guide
Must-Read for Trademark Applications: The Ultimate Guide to Avoiding 3 Major Pitfalls in Specimen Amendments!
In trademark registration applications, a clear and standardized trademark specimen is one of the key elements for obtaining acceptance. However, in practice, it is quite common to receive a *Trademark Registration Application Rectification Notice* due to specimens failing to meet the required standards. Rectifying a trademark specimen not only consumes the applicant’s time and effort, but may also result in the application being rejected if the rectification is not submitted within the prescribed period. This can render the trademark application invalid and cause the applicant to lose the advantage of an early filing date. This article systematically summarizes the main types of trademark specimen rectifications and provides targeted solutions to help applicants efficiently pass the trademark formality examination.
Australian divisional patent “best method” requirement revisited
Australia is one of the few major jurisdictions to retain a “best method” requirement for patent specifications, which necessitates that applicants disclose the best method known to them of performing the invention (Knowledge Element).[i] In a controversial decision, the Federal Court found in 2018 that, in the case of divisional applications, the Knowledge Element is to be assessed at the time of filing the divisional application. Last week, the Federal Court issued a contrary decision, finding the Knowledge Element for divisional applications is to be assessed at the effective filing date derived from the ultimate parent application.
[International Design Applications] A list of international registration numbers and application numbers for international design registration applications
An international application for a design based on the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, which came into effect on May 13, 2015, will be deemed to be an application for design registration filed in Japan on the date of international registration (hereinafter referred to as an "international design registration application") once an international registration designating Japan has been internationally published by the International Bureau of WIPO (Article 60-6 of the Design Act).
Form and substance: the developmental promises of geographical indications in Africa
Geographical indications (GIs) are considered as a viable instrument for sustainable development. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Protocol on Intellectual Property Rights marks a turning point in the pursuit of IP harmonization for African countries to facilitate and deepen intra-African trade. In Article 9 (1) it obliges parties to provide GI protection through sui generis systems and the option of additional legal means of protection through certification marks, collective marks or unfair competition laws.
From safe harbours to AI harbours: reimagining DMCA immunity for the generative AI era
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) overturns the passive-intermediary assumptions that underlie the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbour. Modern systems ingest vast, often unlicensed datasets and emit on-the-fly outputs through a supply chain that spans data suppliers, model developers and deployers—raising parallel concerns in the EU, UK, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions.
Say goodbye to my little FRAND1: is the withdrawal of the European Commission’s Regulation on standard essential patents a missed opportunity or a dodged bullet?
The European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on the licensing and enforcement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) aimed to revolutionize the global SEP licensing and enforcement landscape through a variety of interventionist measures. The proposal was widely welcomed in some quarters but roundly criticized in others, and it was ultimately withdrawn.
The UPC Court of Appeal finds no temporal restrictions on its jurisdiction in XSYS v Esko
Back in early June, the UPC Court of Appeal handed down its decision in a dispute between XSYS and ESKO (UPC_CoA_156/2025) as to whether the UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringing acts that occurred prior to the date the UPC agreement (UPCA) came into force (1 June 2023), and before an opt out was withdrawn. The UPCKats (Rebecca Daramola, Christina Guazzi and Isobel Barry, all of Carpmaels) return to report on another decision in which the UPC confirms its broad jurisdictional scope, driven by the goal of avoiding a fragmented European patent system.
The reproducibility challenge for advanced therapies (T 0827/23)
Reproducibility is an inherent challenge in advanced therapies. Therapeutic extracellular vesicles (EVs), the subject of the recent Board of Appeal case in T 0827/23, are particularly heterogeneous and hard to define products. Aside from the manufacturing and regulatory issues, the inherent heterogeneity of these products also presents a challenge for patentability in Europe. In the biotech field, the EPO will often require data demonstrating the superiority of the invention over the prior art. Patentees must therefore not only demonstrate that their invention works, but also that their invention works better than the prior art technologies. However, the prior art may be even more difficult to reproduce, test and define than the invention itself.
You snooze, you lose: CJEU upholds cancellation of plant variety rights for failure to pay fees on time
Most of us are guilty of ignoring notifications from time to time. But yesterday's judgment from the CJEU confirms that holders of plant variety rights (PVRs) who ignore reminders to pay their annual fees will need very good excuses - with good evidence - to avoid losing their rights forever. This was a lesson learned the hard way for the holders of the now-cancelled PVR for the 'Melrose' potato in Case C‑426/24 P, Romagnoli Fratelli SpA v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO).
European Parliament -Think Tank: Technological Aspects of Generative AI in the Context of Copyright
The European Parliament has just published a study commissioned by its Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs which analyses the topic of ‘Technological Aspects of Generative AI in the Context of Copyright’.
Intellectual Property Office of Ireland publishes 2024 Annual Report
Controller of Intellectual Property, Mr James Kelly has today launched the 2024 Annual Report for the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland. Mr Kelly acknowledged the support provided to the Office by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, which is critical to the delivery of the statutory functions of the IPOI. He also thanked all the dedicated IPOI staff for their work in 2024, who have continued to go beyond to deliver for customers and IP applicants.
Travelwings Trade Mark Case Clarifies Limits of WINGS Trade Mark Exclusivity
On 4 August 2025, the Johannesburg High Court handed down a comprehensive judgment in Wings Travel Management (Pty) Ltd v Satguru Travels (Pty) Ltd t/a Travelwings, dismissing all claims by the applicant, Wings Travel Management (WTM), and providing important guidance on the limits of trade mark protection for common terms.
[Guest post] Was Mary lost in cyberspace? A domain name decision that aims to redefine the Oki Data criteria
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Willem Leppink (Ploum) concerning the recent decision of the Czech Arbitration Court in Dashing Joys Limited, Imiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd v. Mohammad Zafar, CAC Case No. CAC-UDRP-107605.
Joint Ministerial Decision on the procedure for the imposition and collection of administrative fines under Article 65A of Law 2121/1993 (Government Gazette A’ 25) August 5, 2025
The Joint Ministerial Decision (Government Gazette B’ 4218/4-8-2025) has been published, regarding the procedure for the imposition and collection of administrative fines under Article 65A of Law 2121/1993 (A’ 25).
CJEU: National trade name rights are not governed by the EU Trade Mark Directive
It does not seem to require a decision from the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) for the finding that national trade name rights are not governed by the EU Trade Mark Directive (‘TMD’). Yet, sometimes national courts refer good questions to the CJEU but the latter decides to answer different ones. This can lead to seemingly redundant decisions as it happened in Purefun (case C-365/24).
Examiner Consultation Held with China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) held an examiner consultation * with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) from June 24 to 27, 2025 .
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Your essential weekly guide to IP insights from the IPKat!
{{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
