Insights

WIPO records show that Bahrain acceded to the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs on 29 July 2026, with the treaty entering into force for Bahrain on 29 October 2026. The move follows the United Arab Emirates, which acceded on 6 July and will be bound from 6 October. Taken together, the two accessions point to a clearer Gulf trend toward using the same international classification framework for industrial designs.

For applicants, the practical benefit is greater consistency in classification, searching and portfolio administration across markets, rather than immediate harmonization of substantive design law. National filing requirements, examination practice and scope of protection still need to be checked country by country. The Locarno Agreement standardizes classification, while the Hague System provides an international registration route; they solve different problems. If Gulf states continue aligning on both fronts, regional design filing may become easier to manage, but applicants should not treat the shift as a substitute for jurisdiction-specific compliance.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) announced on 14 August 2026 that it will resume accepting new requests under SG Patents Fast and SG Trade Marks Fast from 1 September. Both routes had stopped taking new acceleration requests on 4 January while IPOS reviewed the programmes and reassessed internal resource allocation. Applicants and agents planning accelerated filings should consult Patents Circular No. 5/2026 and Trade Marks Circular No. 3/2026 for the detailed operational requirements.

The reopening restores a useful planning option for businesses working toward product launches, financing rounds, licensing deals or brand roll-outs where earlier certainty can matter. It should not, however, be treated as automatic acceleration: eligibility and filing mechanics still need to be checked case by case. A sensible approach is to review candidate matters before 1 September and align filing dates, fees and response resources in advance rather than wait until the channels reopen.

On 12 August 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration’s Trademark Office released the first five representative cases handled through its fast-track route for trademark oppositions and invalidations, together with an electronic evidence preparation guide. According to the information provided, the selected matters moved from filing to an opposition or invalidation decision in roughly 3.5 to 4 months. The guidance also gives practitioners a clearer picture of what can support accelerated handling: e-commerce sales records carrying trusted timestamps and citation search reports that match the system’s bad-faith squatting blacklist may, where the case qualifies, allow examiners to dispense with parts of the conventional evidence-challenge process and reach a decision more quickly.

The practical significance lies less in the headline processing time than in the way fast-track eligibility is being tied to evidence quality and verifiability. Brand owners and counsel should treat preservation of platform sales data, timestamped records, historical use materials and searches on suspected squatters as part of routine enforcement preparation rather than evidence to be assembled only after a dispute starts. The route is not an automatic shortcut for every bad-faith filing, but clearer evidence standards make front-loaded, machine-verifiable documentation increasingly important to whether a case can actually benefit from accelerated review.

On 13 August 2026, IP Australia updated its patent examination practice to give a more detailed and broader reading of technologies that may qualify for accelerated examination on environmental grounds. The scope is no longer framed only around conventional green hardware such as solar equipment or battery materials: smart-grid technologies, carbon-footprint accounting and AI-based energy optimisation software aimed at reducing data-centre power consumption are now being treated as part of the green-technology fast-track landscape. IP Australia’s current examination manual already recognises environmentally beneficial “green technologies” as a non-exhaustive ground for requesting expedited examination.

For AI and software applicants, the practical shift is that the environmental benefit of the claimed technology matters more than whether the invention is embodied in traditional clean-tech hardware. Applications involving data-centre energy scheduling, grid-load optimisation or carbon calculations should therefore explain the technical system in which the algorithm operates, the mechanism by which energy use or emissions are reduced, and how that effect can be measured. Fast-track treatment does not displace ordinary examination of patentable subject matter, novelty or inventive step, but it may give energy-efficient AI projects an earlier Australian examination outcome and a useful timing advantage for international prosecution, licensing or investment planning.

On 11 August 2026, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) released its first benchmark set of design registrations for metaverse and other virtual-space assets following the new rules that took effect at the end of July. The examples cover standalone virtual UI/UX, digital fashion and virtual architecture, including several designs that reached Japan through international applications under the Hague System.

The practical value lies in the filing detail. The published cases show how applicants have presented multiple views, dynamic changes and statements explaining that a design is not tied to a physical product. For overseas applicants designating Japan through the Hague route, these files offer a clearer reference point for preparing virtual-asset applications and may reduce uncertainty around representation and description. They are not a universal safe harbour, however: registrability will still turn on the individual design, consistency of the submitted views and the JPO’s examination of each case.

EU rules against misleading environmental claims are moving into their enforcement phase. Under Directive (EU) 2024/825, Member States are to apply the new consumer-protection rules from 27 September 2026, including tighter restrictions on generic environmental claims that cannot be properly substantiated and on sustainability labels not based on an approved certification scheme. In parallel, the EUIPO’s 2026 Trade Mark Guidelines have applied since 1 July. For EU trade mark applications containing terms such as “eco”, “green” or “climate neutral”, or comparable visual elements, examination still turns on the goods and services, the overall meaning of the sign and how the relevant public will understand it. A claim that directly describes characteristics may face descriptiveness or lack-of-distinctiveness objections, while a sign capable of creating a false impression about the nature, quality or characteristics of the goods or services may also raise deceptiveness concerns.

This does not amount to a blanket refusal of every “green” mark, but it does make environmental language a weaker foundation for broad exclusivity where the claim is descriptive, vague or disconnected from the actual offer. Applicants should align specifications, substantiation and intended market use before filing. The procedural route also matters: EU trade mark oppositions are principally based on relative grounds, whereas environmental-claim issues framed as absolute grounds are more likely to surface during examination, through third-party observations or in post-registration invalidity proceedings. As the anti-greenwashing rules begin to bite in consumer markets, trade mark strategy and advertising compliance will increasingly need to be assessed together rather than in isolation.