{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
Group B+
Group B+, a framework of developed countries comprising the IP offices from 47 countries and 2 organizations*1, aims to harmonize substantive patent laws. The group primarily discusses four major topics related to substantive patent law harmonization (SPLH): grace period, conflicting applications, prior user rights and prior art, as well as Client-Patent Attorney Privilege (CAP).
Who will run the world – Beyoncé or quasi-Beyoncé?
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by former PermaKat Nicola Searle ( Goldsmiths, University of London), drawing some parallels between the current copyright debates and those of the 2010s, and discussing the substitutability of copyright works.
Enhancing EUIPO services: Prioritising user engagement and collaboration
The European Union Intellectual Property Office has a long-standing, close and regular relationship with IP user associations. From official fora which meets twice a year (Liaison Meetings and User Group Meeting) to the customer satisfaction survey and panels, the EUIPO informs user associations of the latest developments in intellectual property and collects their feedback for better planning and implementing key components of EUIPO activities such as European Cooperation Projects, EU common practices and the EUIPO Strategic Plan. In addition, users are involved in discussions on emerging technologies and the integration of artificial intelligence in IP examination processes, as well as in the user experience of EUIPO flagship tools such as TMview, DesignView, and GIview.
Collaborating for IP Advancement and Innovation: EIT and EUIPO sign new agreement
Since formalising their collaboration in 2020, the European Institute of Innovation & Technology and the European Union Intellectual Property Office play a complementary role in supporting SMEs and entrepreneurs. Under its 2030 Strategic Plan, the EUIPO paves the way for a number of initiatives and activities aimed at fostering and further cementing EUIPO’s cooperation with the EIT. The signature on 2 April 2025 of a Memorandum of Understanding and a common work plan for 2025 is the logical materialisation of this ambition.
INPI partners with Tech For Future 2025: for start-ups, for innovation!
This Tuesday, April 1st, the INPI participated in the grand finale of the Tech for Future competition: the European tech event organized by La Tribune, which travels the world to discover the French startups that will shine a spotlight on tomorrow's technology ecosystem. For the second year in a row, the INPI was a partner of the event and a member of the Jury, alongside La French Tech, Business France, and Bpifrance, to select these gems from all over France and across all sectors. This was an opportunity for the Institute, which presented the Industry Prize to the winner, Wormsensing, to highlight the major role played by industrial property in the innovation strategies implemented by tech players.
Indigenous Knowledge Panel to inform improvements to the IP system
We’re proud to be working with First Nations experts following their appointment to the newly formed Indigenous Knowledge Panel (IK Panel) Pilot.
JPO Status Report 2025 Released
The Japan Patent Office announces the release of the JPO Status Report 2025, a compilation of statistical information and policy outcomes from 2024. The Status Report swiftly conveys information on the current situation surrounding the intellectual property system, as well as the JPO’s initiatives and other matters. All pages are in both Japanese and English, so that it can serve as a compilation of the latest information on intellectual property for people both inside and outside of Japan.
The JPO Quick Reads
In the JPO Quick Reads, KITAMURA Hiroki, Director-General, Patent Examination Department, briefly introduces the JPO initiatives and information on every Monday!
The
The 2024 INPI patent filing rankings were published today. This latest edition is marked by two notable developments: Stellantis and Safran retain first and second place respectively, followed by the L'Oréal group, which has entered the podium. For the first time, two SMEs appear in the ranking of the top 1 patent filers.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Jocelyn Bosse reported on a recent decision of the Supreme People’s Court concerning compensation for the unauthorised plantings and sale of an apple variety called 'Scilate'. The Court awarded RMB 3.3 million in damages, recording the largest award for a civil claim for PVR infringement.
UKIPO tells TfL to mind GAP in partial trade mark refusal for bad faith
In a recent decision regarding an attempt by Transport for London to register the slogan MIND THE GAP as a UK trade mark, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the UKIPO issued a partial refusal of TfL's application on the grounds of bad faith, based on contractual terms in a prior agreement between TfL and the clothes retailer GAP Inc.
Patent Index 2024
The Patent Index 2024, published today by the European Patent Office, shows that innovation has continued to flourish, with last year’s filings on the same high level as the number seen in 2023. The Patent Index 2024, published today by the European Patent Office, shows that innovation has continued to flourish, with last year’s filings on the same high level as the number seen in 2023.
Motion Capture and Pinoy Animation: Bringing Filipino Culture to the World
Behind some of the greatest video games, films, and animations is motion capture, sophisticated software, and hardware that bring life to characters of all kinds and shapes to enthrall us. Marla D. Rausch, CEO of Animation Vertigo, a motion capture tracking and animation external development company, is one of the few women in the business.
G 2/21 applied to software inventions
The EPO Board of Appeal decision in T 0687/22 confirms beyond doubt the relevance of G 2/21 to software inventions. The decision in T 0687/22 links the case law from G 1/19 and G 2/21 to highlight the importance of establishing a credible technical effect of software invention. The Patentee in the case made several attempts to formulate an objective technical problem solved by the invention based on several suggested technical effects. The Board of Appeal, citing both G 2/21 and G 1/19, was not convinced that the necessary criteria for relying on these purported technical effects were met.
Journal of the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland
The names of applicants are in alphabetical order. The title of the invention should not be regarded as an exhaustive indication of the subject-matter. The date immediately following the title is that on which the application was filed; in the case of a divisional application, the filing date of the earlier application is added within parentheses. Where the application invokes the Paris Convention, the Convention country and priority date(s) claimed are given in square brackets. Where an application claimed the priority of an earlier application filed at this Office, this information is given within the square brackets. The number is that of the application and should be used for correspondence purposes up to the date of grant of a patent. The letter S preceding the number indicates that the application is for a short-term patent. A new number will be given when a patent is granted and this new number should be quoted in all correspondence subsequent to grant.
UPOV welcomes its 80th member: Nigeria
Following the announcement earlier this month that Nigeria would join the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), Nigeria's accession to the treaty took effect today. This brings the UPOV membership to a total of 80: two intergovernmental organisations (the EU and the African Intellectual Property Organization, OAPI) and 78 countries.
Trademark Registration in South Africa
Trademark registration provides exclusive rights to use your brand or logo in connection with your products or services. South Africa is not a member of the Madrid Protocol, so all filings must be national.
South African Patent System Overview
South Africa’s patent system is unique in that it operates as a depository system—this means that no substantive examination is conducted on the novelty or inventiveness of the invention.
Tuning in! A take on the state of proceedings before oral proceedings
Today is the day of the highly anticipated oral proceedings on G 1/24. The referral relates to a highly fundamental question of patent law, namely how the claims of a patent should be interpreted. KatFriend, Greg Corcoran, takes us through the background to the referral, details of the latest flurry of submission and suggests the key points to look out for in the hearing today. Over to Greg!
USPTO launches security-enhancing identity verification process for Patent Center users
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is introducing the modern identity verification platform called ID.me to Patent Center users. Our goals in implementing this platform are to further simplify the application process, create efficiencies, and bolster enforcement against outside threats.
{{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
