{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
KIPO Apprehends Former Executive Attempting to Leak Secondary Battery Technology Overseas
Joint cooperation among KIPO, the Prosecution service, and the NIS blocks the overseas outflow of national strategic technologies in secondary batteries
Special website for the 2019 Design Law amendments
This page introduces information regarding the 2019 Design Act Amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Design Act Amendment") .
Event Information
Trademark examiners support the foundation of trust in brands through trademarks such as product names, service names, and logos. We will be introducing the work and career paths of trademark examiners at various events.
About Patent Attorneys
Patent attorneys are nationally certified specialists in intellectual property. Their mission is to handle a wide range of intellectual property rights, including patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, and trademark rights (collectively known as industrial property rights), as well as copyrights and breeders' rights, and to promote their proper protection and use, thereby contributing to the development of the economy and industry.
Intellectual Property Protection on Pinduoduo and Its Overseas Platform Temu
In the rapidly evolving landscape of e-commerce, platforms must balance expansive growth with robust intellectual property (IP) protection to maintain trust and sustainability. Pinduoduo, a leading Chinese e-commerce giant, alongside its burgeoning overseas counterpart Temu, have emerged as significant players in this arena. This article provides a comprehensive overview of these platforms and explains their mechanisms for IP rights enforcement, offering valuableinsights for rights holders and stakeholders.
Summary of Results of the 2025 WIPO General Assembly
A delegation from the Japan Patent Office, led by Commissioner Kasai and Deputy Patent Engineer Yasuda, physically participated in the 66th WIPO General Assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland.
Trade secrecy in automated decisions: against the myth of irreconcilability and the imposition of patents
Trade secrecy has been widely recognised as an obstacle to transparency in automated decision-making. In multiple cases involving automated decisions impacting individuals, the disclosure of decision-making processes has been restricted to safeguard proprietary information.
No change: The EPO's guidance to Examiners on how to apply G1/24
PatKat has received a copy of an internal EPO communication sent to EPO Examiners on how they should apply G1/24 (kindly sent by an anonymous Katfriend). In case there was any doubt as to how much G1/24 changed the status quo, the guidance notably fails to identify any need for a change in practice on claim interpretation. Instead the EPO essentially tells Examiners to continue to apply the current official Guidelines for Examination.
Upcycling under EU copyright law: from infringement risks to protectability requirements
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest post by Katfriend Spyros Sipetas (Stockholm University), discussing upcycling from the perspective of EU copyright law, in light of a recently published journal article that he co-authored with Eleonora Rosati.
Wednesday Whimsies
With the midweek blues or elation (depending on whether you are a pessimist or an optimist) settling in, the IPKat is here with a collection of IP stories and events to speed you on to the weekend.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Here is an overview of the latest at The IPKat!
[Book Review] Food, Philosophy, and Intellectual Property
This TechieKat was pleased to put her paws on Food, Philosophy, and Intellectual Property, written by Enrico Bonadio (Professor of Intellectual Property Law at City St George’s University of London) and Andrea Borghini (Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Milan).
BREAKING: Referral on description amendments finally confirmed! (G1/25 - "Hydroponics")
After years of debate and conflicting decisions from the Boards of Appeal, we finally have a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) on the description amendments! To be honest, after the first false alarm (IPKat), PatKat was half-expecting them to bottle it again. However, it is now official. In the first referral of 2025, the question of whether applicants and patentees must amend the description to conform to the allowed claims has now been referred to the EBA (G1/25).
[GuestPost] Has G1/24 made the referral of the question of amendment of the description from T697/22 inevitable?
The European patent community is once again holding its breath. Following the landmark Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G1/24 on claim interpretation, the significant loose end of description amendments remains. With a decision expected tomorrow, 30 July, in case T697/22, a referral to the EBA seems imminent. This could finally bring clarity to the thorny question of whether, and on what legal basis, the description should be brought into conformity with the allowed claims. In a timely analysis, KatFriend Greg Corcoran looks into the proposed referral questions, the potential impact of G1/24, and the possible implications for practitioners, the EPO, and the wider goal of legal harmonisation across Europe.
Copyright exceptions and fair use defences for AI training done for “research” and “learning”: A new academic study
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”.
[Guest post] Dutch court grants pan-European copyright injunction against Tripp Trapp chair look-a-like
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following contribution by former GuestKat Jan Jacobi and Katfriend Margot Vergeest (both BarentsKrans) on a recent Dutch decision that has acknowledged copyright protection in the famous Tripp Trapp children chair and granted a pan-European injunction against a similar chair manufactured by a German competitor (Cybex) of Norwegian Stokke.
BRPTO publishes new ordinances on trademark priority procedures
trademark priority
Trademark Examination Status
This page announces the expected start date for trademark registration applications that have not yet begun examination .
"What does an IP Officer Do?" - The Real World of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and Startups
Currently, universities and start-up companies, which are driving innovation, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that play an important role in revitalizing regional economies, are seeking human resources with specialized knowledge and skills related to intellectual property.
Patent Application Statistics
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) prepares and publishes the Patent Administration Annual Report (Data and Statistics Edition) every year with the aim of providing basic data on the status of applications for industrial property rights in Japan. We have now decided to publish preliminary monthly figures that form the basis of this report.
{{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
