{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
World Intellectual Property Day 2025 Celebration in Karachi
KARACHI, June 19, 2025: The Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan （IPO-Pakistan） celebrated the World Intellectual Property Day 2025 in Karachi. While bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders from government, academia, creative industries, and international organizations, the event marked the recognition of IP and the theme for this year i.e. IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP. It highlighted the powerful role of intellectual property （IP） in supporting music, empowering artists, and promoting innovation in the creative economy.
Design imitation: What is the law – and how do you protect yourself from copying?
Creating something unique is an investment – of time, knowledge and identity. When someone copies what you have developed, it is not just annoying – it can have real legal, financial and reputational consequences. Design counterfeiting and product counterfeiting are unfortunately widespread problems that affect both individuals and professionals in creative and commercial industries.
EBA decides G1/24 on claim interpretation: The description should always be consulted
The Enlarged Board of Appeal （EBA） has issued its highly anticipated decision in G 1/24, relating to fundamental questions about how patent claims should be interpreted when assessing patentability. The referral arose from diverging Board of Appeal case law on whether the description and drawings should always be used to interpret the claims, or should only be referred to when the claims are unclear or ambiguous. The EBA found that the description and drawings should always be consulted when interpreting the claims.
KIPO Supports Establishment Timor-Leste's Intellectual Property Office
The Korean Intellectual Property Office （KIPO） has started taking concrete steps to support the launch of the Timor-Leste Intellectual Property （IP） Office, with the running of the four-day training for the delegation from Timor-Leste's Ministry of Commerce and Industry which started June 17 2025.
KIPO Participated in 18th IP5 Heads of Office and Industry Meeting
The Korean Intellectual Property Office （KIPO）, led by Commissioner Wan Ki Kim, announced its participation in the 18th IP5 Heads of Office Meeting held on May 28 2025 （local time） in Tianjin, China.
A SANGUINARY PROBLEM
Similarly to the British Patents Act and the European Patent Convention, the South African Patents Act excludes from patentability a method of treatment by therapy of the animal or human body.
AG Emiliou advises CJEU on pastiche （while adopting very critical stance on EU copyright system as a whole and past CJEU case law too）
What does 'pastiche' mean? A question like this, raised a few years ago, would probably have sounded esoteric - if not plainly weird - to most. Yet, it is now at the centre of one of the most important recent referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union （CJEU）: Pelham II, C-590/23 [IPKat here, here, here, here, here].
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
As the weather warms up, so does the pace of IP developments. Follow along for the latest updates and insights!
MEDIA RELEASE UNOC3 Conservation, development of oceans don’t conflict, Nauru says_17Jun2025
The Government of Nauru has told the recent 2025 UN Ocean Conference that the nation "cannot continue business as usual", with the country's minister for climate change and national resilience Asterio Appi asking delegates to deliver an ocean revolution - "one that delivers action, not just declarations".
Increase in Patent Examination Official Fees and Revised Payment Deadlines
The Egyptian Intellectual Property Authority （EGIPA） has issued Decree No. 26 of 2025, published in the Official Gazette No. 132 on 17 June 2025, introducing substantial changes to the patent examination fee structure and related payment deadlines in Egypt.
Getty Images v Stability AI - UK trial begins
Yesterday marked the first day in the highly anticipated Getty Images （Getty） v Stability AI （Stability） trial before the High Court in London. Here we cover the opening salvos and the trade mark infringement and passing off claims. Tomorrow, we will pick up the copyright and database rights claims, and safe harbour defence.
Alnylam v. Moderna and the judicious use of definitions: The European perspective
The recent decision of the US Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit in Alnylam v Moderna relates to the ongoing complex and high-stakes dispute over mRNA vaccine delivery technology. In a blow for Alnylam, the Federal Circuit found that Moderna did not infringe Alnylam's LNP platform patents in view of a definition of a technical term included in the description that narrowed the claims. The Federal Circuit concluded that, by including this definition in the description, Alnylam had acted as its own lexicographer and deliberately narrowed the meaning of the term.
Freedom to operate versus patentability in biotech: What the difference is and why it matters
When out and about talking with scientists, PatKat is often asked to explain the difference between freedom to operate （FTO） and patentability. The distinction between FTO and patentability is highly relevant to the field of biotechnology and understanding the difference is crucial. However, whilst the majority of "Intro to IP" talks begin with telling us that patents are negative monopolies, the significance of this legal principles and its relation to patentability and FTO, is lost without illustrative examples.
No stay of infringement proceedings while UK Plant Variety Rights Office determines validity
In the latest update to the Nadorcott saga, the infringement proceedings against Asda will not be stayed while the Plant Variety Rights Office determines the validity of the UK Plant Variety Right （PVR） for the 'Nadorcott' variety of mandarin orange. Nador Cott Protection v Asda [2025] EWHC 941 （Pat） seems to be the first time a UK court has considered whether a stay of PVR infringement proceedings should be granted pending the outcome of invalidity proceedings.
Clarification on Trademark Renewal and Re-registration Procedures in Libya
Trademark Office in Libya has issued Circular No. 2 of 2025, dated June 1, 2025, which clarifies the distinction between the expiration of a trademark’s protection period and the official cancellation date.
Updates on Trademark Procedures before the Brazilian PTO: NewServices, Automation, and Changes to Official Fees
The Brazilian PTO has recently implemented significant changes to the fee structure and procedures related to the registration of trademarks, patents, and other industrial property rights, directly impacting the strategy of these assets. The changes, outlined in Resolution INPI/PR No. 263/2024, aim to promote greater efficiency in the examination of applications and alignment with practices already established in other jurisdictions.
Amendment to the Design Examination Guidelines
The Design Examination Guidelines of the Korean Intellectual Property Office （“KIPO”） have been revised, effective as of June 16, 2025. Some of the more notable changes are outlined below.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Didn't catch the latest in IP news last week? Don't worry, here's your chance to catch up on everything you might have missed from the IPKat!
New South African Plant Breeders’ Rights law comes into effect
South Africa’s new Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 12 of 2018 （new Act） has, by proclamation in the Government Gazette of 6 June 2025, been deemed to have been in effect since 1 June 2025. Thus, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 15 of 1976 （old Act） is now repealed.
Modernising Uganda’s Intellectual Property Laws
The Ugandan Copyright and Neighbouring Rights （Amendment） Bill, 2025 marks a significant step in modernising Uganda’s intellectual property laws to better protect creators and innovators. Introduced by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Norbert Mao, the bill aims to strengthen copyright protections, particularly for musicians and artists, ensuring fair compensation for their work. Whilst the bill undergoes parliamentary scrutiny, this article seeks to weigh in on its key aspects and to highlight its potential benefits for musicians and artists.
{{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
