{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
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acts that occurred prior to the date the UPC agreement (UPCA) came into force (1 June 2023), and before an opt out was withdrawn.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!
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.
{{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
