Insights

In its GEORGE ORWELL decision of 19 December 2025, the EUIPO Grand Board upheld the refusal of the word mark for a broad range of goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41. The core point is straightforward. For the relevant English-speaking public, George Orwell is first and foremost the name of a famous author. When that name appears on recordings, publications, educational services or entertainment services, consumers are likely to read it as a reference to subject matter, themes or authorship, not as an indication of commercial origin.

The importance of the ruling goes beyond one filing. It sharpens the line between cultural reference and trade mark function at a moment when many classic works are already in the public domain or moving closer to it. Estates and rights holders may still build brands, license products and organise curated commercial programmes around literary legacies. What they cannot assume, at least not for content-facing goods and services, is that a famous author’s name can simply be folded back into the trade mark system as a private badge of origin.

The African Intellectual Property Organisation (OAPI) has put forward a draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and E-Commerce Platform Liability, according to the policy outline now under discussion. The proposal moves beyond conventional copyright administration and focuses on how online marketplaces and digital platforms should respond when infringing goods or unauthorised digital content circulate through their services.

The draft would seek to harmonise the regulatory approach across OAPI member states and introduce a “Notice and Stay-down” obligation for platforms. If a marketplace receives a qualified notice from a right holder and deliberately delays action, or fails to maintain effective filtering and repeat-infringement controls, it may find it harder to rely on safe-harbour protection. The direction is clear: platforms serving African digital markets may no longer be treated as merely passive channels.

South Africa’s Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) has launched an electronic trade mark hearing platform, the e-Tribunal Portal, for opposition, invalidity and related trade mark disputes. For brand owners, the change is more than a filing convenience. It brings a traditionally slow and paper-heavy dispute track closer to a managed digital case environment.

The accompanying examination guidance also gives sharper treatment to filings made without a genuine intention to use and to bad-faith applications by agents or distributors. Under the new approach, once an opponent produces initial evidence suggesting clear free-riding on goodwill or an absence of real commercial intent, the applicant may have to submit genuine business plans or use evidence within 30 days. Failure to do so could expose the application or registration to accelerated cancellation. Evidence strategy will matter earlier than before.

The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization has announced an Accelerated Examination Track under the Harare Protocol for selected patent applications. The route covers PCT applications entering the ARIPO regional phase and direct patent filings where the invention relates to public health, agricultural technology or clean energy. For eligible cases, the stated examination target is 12 to 18 months.

The measure is a practical signal that ARIPO wants scarce examination capacity to move faster where regional development needs are more visible. Applicants should not treat acceleration as a routine request; claim scope, technical support and designated state strategy will need to be prepared carefully. The same notice also changes trade mark practice for Madrid designations of ARIPO: from June 2026, opposition evidence and responses in refusal review matters must be filed electronically, with paper submissions by post no longer accepted. That should reduce mailing uncertainty, but it also leaves less room for slow client-agent document coordination.

The U.S. Copyright Office has issued an interim assessment on digital platform copyright governance and AI infringement liability, placing social media services, content-sharing platforms and built-in generative AI tools within the same policy conversation. The report’s immediate focus is not whether AI-generated content is useful, but whether automated AI systems used for DMCA notice-and-takedown can deal fairly with mistaken removals, under-removal and counter-notice procedures.

The more difficult issue is the platform’s changing role. The traditional safe-harbour model rests on a familiar structure: users upload content, platforms host it, and the platform responds after receiving a proper notice. When the platform itself provides the AI generation tool used to create allegedly infringing material, that passive-intermediary story becomes harder to maintain. The report does not rewrite the law, but it points toward closer scrutiny of platform duties in secondary infringement cases.

Mexico’s Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) has updated its practice guidance for industrial designs filed through the Hague System, with a useful clarification on the country’s 12-month novelty grace period. Applicants who disclosed a design before filing, for example at an international exhibition or product launch, should not assume that the grace period will be applied automatically. Where protection is sought in Mexico, supporting evidence must be submitted in the required form when filing the Hague international application or within the relevant period after the Mexican designation enters IMPI examination.

The message is practical rather than theoretical: evidence management now matters earlier. Exhibition certificates, dates of disclosure, copies of the displayed design, links between the disclosed design and the Hague reproductions, and proof of entitlement should be gathered before the application is filed. If the applicant does not explain and document the prior disclosure in time, IMPI may treat that disclosure as novelty-destroying prior art. For companies using the Hague System as a streamlined design filing route, the Mexican update is a reminder that centralised filing does not remove local evidence requirements.