{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
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.
Beyond Aesthetics: The Strategic Power of Design Rights in Multi-Layered IP Portfolios
Often overlooked, and in the shadow of the flashiness of a cool brand or the wow factor of a new technology, design rights have long played the role of the quiet achiever in the IP world. While patents and trade marks often dominate the conversation, registered designs (or design patents) offer a surprisingly potent and underutilised layer of protection – especially when strategically aligned with other forms of IP.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Don't miss a beat! Catch up on the latest IP news with the IPKat.
[Guest post] Fight against online piracy: dynamic injunctions in Belgium
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriends Rudi Mathieu (Proximus ADA) and Theodora Stamos (Proximus) on relatively recent amendments to Belgian law in order to contrast online piracy and their potential application in practice. Both authors write in a personal capacity and the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.
Grand stripes and single-brand stores – A great combination for genuine use?
No, you can’t have it all – At least you cannot claim genuine use of all goods sold in a single-brand store if your trade mark is only used on the storefront. That is the gist of a recent judgment of the General Court (T-372/24).
Sunday Surprises
Another week has come to an end and, as usual, The IPKat brings its Readers the latest news on IP events, opportunities, and announcements. Also, do not forget to regularly check our Events page!
Thai Music Set to Take Center Stage Globally backed by Creative Rights
A Life in Music, A Thai Musician with many Hats Fights for Global Recognition of Thai Music through Creative Rights
Pharma giants clash over ‘BUCOD’ names as court keeps ban in place
The pharmaceutical industry’s latest trade mark war escalated yesterday, 18 August 2025 as Aspen Pharmacare successfully convinced the Pretoria High Court to keep competitor Adcock Ingram’s LENBUCOD product banned from the market—even while Adcock appeals the original ruling.
Can trade mark law help protect one’s privacy (and stop the spread of embarrassing WhatsApp audio messages)?
The use – and abuse – of IP rights to achieve objectives other than protecting what those rights were originally meant to do is not new. In all of this, however, the interplay between IP and privacy is arguably an emerging and still underexplored area.
Nauru secures $1bn socio-economic development project with China company
Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade, Hon Lionel Aingimea, MP and chairman of the China Rural Revitalisation and Development Corporation (CRRDC), Zhang Yong signed a phase 1 investment project proposal valued at approximately AU$1 billion, further cementing economic injection for Nauru' socio-economic development, 5 August.
Respecting the Lens: Copyright Infringement and the Rights of Photographers in South Africa
In the digital age, photographs are shared, reposted, and embedded across websites with ease. Yet behind every image lies a creator, a photographer who has invested time, skill, and resources to produce a work of art. When these photographs are used without permission, it constitutes copyright infringement under South African law, and the consequences can be significant.
Generative AI in fashion design creation: a copyright analysis of AI-assisted designs
The growing use of generative artificial intelligence technology (gen-AI) technology in design creation offers valuable tool for increasing efficiency and for widening the creative perspectives of fashion designers.
Once the genie is out of the bottle…
So far, the Aladin case law and the principle of partial use have only been applied to decide whether genuine use of a trade mark has been established for a broad term by submitting evidence of use for goods or services that fall under that broad term. In a recent judgment of the General Court (T-144/24), the judges applied this case law to terms falling in different classes.
IPOPHL intensifies copyright awareness, protection to push PH music higher in global IFPI rankings
The Philippines recorded $88.3 million (P5.1 billion) in revenues from recorded music in 2024, a 17.9% year-on-year growth which is the second highest growth rate in Southeast Asia, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s (IFPI) Global Music Report 2025.
Divergence between the UPC and EPO on claim interpretation and description definitions (Agfa v Gucci, UPC_CFI_278/2023)
The recent decision of the UPC Hamburg Local Division in Agfa v Gucci (UPC_CFI_278/2023) is another addition to the case law on claim interpretation and the impact of description definitions. The Local Division found Agfa’s patent for decorating leather valid, yet simultaneously ruled that Gucci’s products did not infringe. The entire case pivoted on the interpretation of the word "achromatic" in view of conflicting description definitions. In contrast to the recent Board of Appeal interpretations of G1/24 finding that description definitions do not override clear claim language (IPKat), the UPC Local Division found that a narrow description definition should be used to interpret the claims.
[Guest post] Retromark Volume XVI: the last six months in trade marks
There’s no shortage of interesting cases this round, and plenty of variety within them too. Of particular note is the emergence of post-SkyKick jurisprudence on bad faith and broad specifications, tackled in not one but two of the nine cases considered below.
Trademark Opposition in Indonesia
Trademark Opposition in Indonesia
{{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
