{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
Retromark 2025: Event Report 2
At the sixth annual Retromark: the conference last week, more than 180 of you showed up to experience an afternoon of trade mark law and practice. But not just that, the audience also participated in a short “interview” which I conducted to try to understand the views of the UK trade mark profession.
Retromark 2025: Event Report 1
The good and the great from the trade mark world, at least insofar as it includes people who were in London on 3 April, descended on the offices of Simmons & Simmons for this year’s excellent Retromark, in association with the IPKat. Formed of two panel sessions and a keynote from Prof. Johanna Gibson (Queen Mary), it was a lively and informative update.
Too broad, too early? AI platform for cell analysis found to lack technical character and sufficiency
The decision in T 0660/22 combines two of PatKat's favourite things, AI and cells! The patent application at issue related to a method for analysing image data about cells growing in culture. Unfortunately for the applicant, the Board of Appeal found the claims to either lack technical character or to relate to a technical method so broad that it was insufficiently disclosed. The decision thus highlights some of the challenges associated with trying to broadly protect software-based platform technology for biological research.
No retroactive protections for well-known trade marks against GIs for wines, says Advocate-General
Last week, Advocate-General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his opinion in Case C‑341/24 Duca di Salaparuta. As this Kat previously reported here, the Italian Supreme Court referred questions to the CJEU on conflicts between geographical indications and trade marks for wines. The AG took the view that more recent provisions which protect trade marks with a reputation did not apply retroactively to geographical indications that were registered under the earlier EU regulations.
Government publishes second transformation consultation response
The IPO’s digital transformation has reached another key milestone with the government response to its second transformation consultation being published today. This consultation ran between August and October 2023.
Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation)
Following the high profile hearing last month, we are now waiting for the written decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in G 1/24. IPKat readers can catch-up on the full background to the case here. There is also still plenty to discuss while we wait.
High Court of Australia to Hear Katy Perry and Bed Bath N Table Disputes
The High Court of Australia has been busy on the trade mark and consumer protection side of things this month with the Court granting Katie Taylor special leave to appeal in the KATY PERRY/KATIE PERRY trade mark dispute today (11 April) and also granting special leave to hear the BED BATH N TABLE consumer law dispute on 3 April 2025. Although these cases deal with different causes of action, both appeals will focus on reputation issues, the outcome of which will have a significant impact on the way well-known brands can be protected and enforced in Australia.
Overview of Brazil’s AI Legal Developments and IP Implications
Brazil is actively shaping its legal framework for artificial intelligence. Below is a summary of current initiatives that may impact the IP landscape.
CJEU to address compatibility of Italian anticipatory measures with Enforcement Directive
The Italian Supreme Court has referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) a question on the compatibility of Italian ‘anticipatory measures’ with Directive 2004/48/EC on civil enforcement of intellectual property rights (case C-132/25). The request for preliminary ruling is not yet available officially, but may be accessed through the national litigation.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
IPKat's Weekly Catch-Up: Stay Informed!
Survey shows awareness of intellectual property rights protection remains high
The Intellectual Property Department (IPD) announced today (March 31) the results of the Survey on Public Awareness of Intellectual Property (IP) Right Protection 2024, which showed that the general public maintained a high level of awareness of IP rights protection.
Taiwan Patent GO Showcases Winning Entries of the 2024 National Invention & Creation Awards Starting in March
The 2024 National Invention & Creation Award winners were officially announced on January 20, 2025, on TIPO’s website. This year, from 418 qualified entries, a total of 40 outstanding patented works were selected, including 6 Gold Medals and 26 Silver Medals in the Invention Category, and 4 Gold Medals and 4 Silver Medals in the Creation Category.
High-Tech Exports Surge 9% in 2024, but Uncertainty Looms Amid Trade Tensions
Intellectual property ensures that innovations in high-tech industries, such as automotive, semiconductor or aeorspace technologies, as well as pharmaceutical drugs, are adequately protected and effectively leveraged at the international stage.
The impact of Pingti on luxury brand protection strategies
By blurring the line between counterfeiting and legality, the phenomenon of ‘Pingti’ is shaking up the world of high-end goods. Férielle Metekalerd explains what a Pingti is and what the quiet luxury trend means for luxury brand protection strategies.
PH moves to the beat and power of music for National Intellectual Property Month 2025
The Philippines will celebrate National Intellectual Property Month (NIPM) this April, and will highlight the importance of protecting and respecting intellectual property (IP) rights, with a special focus on the power of music.
The Plant Variety Rights Journal - April 2025
The latest quarterly edition of the Journal is now available.
Crisalis Shattered
A recent decision of the Australian Patent Office illustrates the risk of placing too much trust in related party transactions. The decision addressed a dispute between Crisalis International Pty Limited (“Crisalis”) and C2 Water (SPV) Pty Limited (“SPV”) regarding the ownership of a patent titled “Apparatus, system and method for desalination of groundwater”. Crisalis was owned by a Dr Barber, who was the sole inventor of the desalination technique.
JPO-EUIPO Trademark Experts Meeting Held
The JPO held a two-day virtual trademark experts meeting together with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) on March 12-13, 2025.
IPOPHL hosts regional forum on Madrid system to help champion global brand expansion
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) recently hosted the 2025 Regional Meeting of Intellectual Property Office Officials Responsible for the Madrid System for Asia and Pacific Countries, underscoring its commitment to advancing global trademark protection and expansion through the Madrid Protocol.
Working visit to the Principality by Mr. Pascal FAURE, Director General of the French Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI)
On March 27, 2025, Mr. Pascal FAURE, Director General of INPI, accompanied by two of his collaborators (Mr. Jérémie FENICHEL, Director of the Industrial Property and Business Department and Mr. Eric CATAPANO, PACA Regional Delegate within the Economic Action Department) made a working visit to the Principality.
{{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
