Insights

WIPO Information Notice No. 44/2026, dated 5 November, lowers the individual fee for designating Syria under the Madrid Protocol from 215 to 199 Swiss francs per class of goods or services, as from 5 December 2026. The new amount applies to international applications, subsequent designations and renewals alike: 16 Swiss francs less per class, or 160 Swiss francs less for a ten-class designation.

Syria's office has not repriced anything.

A trademark registered in mainland China cannot stop a seller in Hong Kong, Macao or the Taiwan region from using the same brand: it has no effect there. Many foreign companies assume that a trademark registered in mainland China also covers Hong Kong, Macao and the Taiwan region. It does not. Mainland China, Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and the Taiwan region each run their own trademark system, with separate offices, laws, fees and terms, and none of the three can be reached through a Madrid designation of China. This guide sets out what that means in practice. It gives general rules; a specific case needs professional advice.

China's revised Trademark Law takes effect on 1 January 2027. Foreign brand owners with applications, oppositions or cancellation actions already running in China are asking the same question: which law will decide my case? On 28 September CNIPA published draft Measures for Handling Trademark Matters under the Revised Trademark Law, a ten-article transition text open for comment until 12 November. This guide walks through what the draft would mean for pending matters, including Madrid designations of China. It is a draft and may change; a specific case needs professional advice.

On 30 October the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in Google v. Sonos (No. 2025-1346), an appeal from the Northern District of California. Google said Sonos smart speakers infringed its U.S. Patent No. 7,899,187, but both infringement theories failed on claim construction. The decision is nonprecedential and limited to this patent and this appeal.

The patent

The '187 patent, titled "Domain-Based Digital-Rights Management System with Easy and Secure Device Enrollment", groups devices on one account into a domain that shares protected content, using a private key to decrypt it.

In a 246-page common judgment delivered on 3 November in ABD Maestro v. Great Galleon (CS(COMM) 987/2026) and 16 connected suits, the Delhi High Court held that none of the 17 IP suits fell within its territorial jurisdiction. It returned the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the appropriate court, with liberty to seek directions under Rule 10A. The ruling deals only with jurisdiction; infringement remains to be decided by the proper court.

Your trademark application in China passed examination and was published, and then someone filed an opposition. For foreign applicants this is often the first contested proceeding they face in China, and the deadlines are short. An opposition is not a court case: CNIPA decides it on the written record, usually within a year. This guide explains how an opposition against your application works under the current Trademark Law (2019 amendment), what to file in response and what happens after the decision. It sets out general rules; a specific case needs professional advice.