Insights

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.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) continues to advance the modernisation of the UK designs framework, with virtual and animated designs already identified as an area requiring closer treatment. For 3D digital assets such as virtual clothing, in-game vehicles and other digital objects, that policy direction makes the overlap between copyright and design protection more important in practice: the same asset may engage different rights where the relevant legal conditions are met, but those rights do not share the same thresholds, duration or scope.

The practical risk is treating one right as a substitute for another. Rights holders should separately verify whether a design right remains in force, whether the asset qualifies for copyright protection, and whether a platform complaint is supported by a clear chain of ownership and infringement evidence. Notice-and-takedown mechanisms remain an important enforcement route for digital platforms, but they should not be used as a way to extend the commercial effect of an expired design right. For businesses operating in games, virtual goods and digital fashion, the safer approach is to build evidence and registration strategies around the specific right being asserted rather than relying on a single enforcement channel.

Editor’s note (24 September 2026): as of publication we have not located an official announcement of the measures described below; this article is based on industry briefings and is subject to official confirmation.

On 15 August 2026, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) announced a joint automated monitoring and anti-fraud framework for Madrid System cases designating the European Union (EM). Under the new setup, relevant international trademark filings and renewals will be screened in real time, while official electronic notices will incorporate dynamic digital signatures and anti-counterfeiting watermarks. The measure is aimed at reducing the risk of fraudulent third-party payment notices that mimic official requests for “EU registration fees” or other purported charges, and WIPO has urged representatives to update client-facing invoice verification and anti-scam procedures.

For trademark agents and cross-border brand owners, stronger technical authentication should complement rather than replace manual payment checks. Firms should continue verifying the source of each notice, the payee, the stated fee and the applicable deadline through official channels before funds are transferred. The practical significance of the WIPO-EUIPO initiative lies in moving authenticity checks closer to the official notification layer, where fraudulent correspondence is most likely to be mistaken for routine Madrid System administration.

This article updates our report of 2 August, “USPTO Tightens Scrutiny of Unintentional Delay After One Year”.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s final rule on petitions based on “unintentional delay” took effect on 13 August 2026 and applies to relevant petitions filed on or after that date. The key change is the point at which a petitioner must provide additional factual support: instead of generally requiring a supplemental explanation once the delay exceeds two years, the USPTO now applies that requirement after one year. The change reaches petitions to revive abandoned patent applications, accept delayed maintenance-fee payments, restore delayed priority or benefit claims, and address certain missed deadlines involving international design applications under the Hague system. The higher petition-fee threshold was also moved from delays of more than two years to delays of more than one year, while the fee amount itself was not changed.

For applicants and practitioners, the practical message is straightforward. The remedy remains available, but long-delayed matters will require a more complete record showing why the entire period of delay was unintentional. A bare declaration is no longer enough once the one-year threshold is crossed. Docketing histories, payment records, changes in responsible personnel, client instructions, notices and the timeline for discovering and correcting the lapse may therefore become more important. The longer a problem remains undiscovered, the more difficult—and potentially more expensive—it may be to assemble a persuasive evidentiary record.

On 11 August 2026, Brazil’s INPI announced the launch of a collaborative patent examination project with Peru’s INDECOPI, beginning with nine applications. The first batch targets pharmaceuticals, including medicinal chemistry and biopharmaceuticals, biotechnology and natural products. Eligible cases were filed through the PCT route, have corresponding family applications in both Brazil and Peru, and entered the national phase within the project’s specified window. Selected applications move ahead of the ordinary examination queue, and the project does not use a preliminary technical office action before the normal substantive examination process continues at each office.

The practical attraction is not speed alone. Life-sciences and natural-product patents can raise overlapping questions about claim scope, disclosure, prior art and, in some cases, biodiversity-related compliance. Applicants with parallel Brazilian and Peruvian filings may gain from less duplicated search work and earlier examination, but coordinated review should not be read as a promise of identical outcomes. A sensible response is to align claim strategy, specification support and national-phase records before accelerated examination exposes inconsistencies between the two files.