Insights

Invoking political speech does not automatically justify using a reputed trade mark. In its 8 September 2026 judgment in Inter IKEA Systems, the CJEU required an assessment of good faith, the contribution to public debate and the impact on the brand owner. The dispute concerns IKEA signs used in Belgian political campaigning. The Court indicated that borrowing the marks solely to amplify a political message appeared insufficient to outweigh the proprietor’s interests, subject to verification by the national court. It did not decide the underlying infringement dispute.

Brand protection teams should distinguish commercial use from non-commercial use covered by additional national protection: the balance can differ. J&C recommends retaining campaign materials and evidence of reach, reputation and any suggestion of brand endorsement, alongside evidence of unfair advantage or harm, before deciding on escalation. The assessment must also give proper weight to good-faith commentary and public-interest debate. Neither an exclusive trade mark right nor a claim to political expression resolves the case on its own.

TexasLDPC can pursue its patent claims without joining Texas A&M University, the Federal Circuit held in a precedential decision on 14 September 2026. Reversing the dismissal in TexasLDPC v Broadcom, the court found that the licence transferred all substantial patent rights and that the university was not otherwise a required party in this case. Moving to an enforcement-only business had not terminated the agreement: its operative terms expressly contemplated enforcement efforts and sharing litigation recoveries. The ruling addresses the ability to bring the case, not whether infringement occurred.

For university technology transfers and cross-border licensing, the practical question is who controls the rights throughout the relationship. J&C recommends reviewing litigation control, sublicensing, revenue sharing, retained rights and termination provisions together, and stating whether enforcement counts towards continuing business and performance obligations. An exclusive licence label alone does not settle who may sue. Even a transfer of all substantial rights leaves a separate inquiry into whether the patent owner must be joined under the applicable procedural rules.

Brazil held a public hearing in Brasília on 14 September on counterfeit and non-compliant goods sold through digital platforms, according to the justice ministry’s on-the-day report. The hearing was intended to inform the work of CERCE, the special commission on e-commerce regulation. The official call identified product checks, seller identification, traceability and the monitoring and removal of listings as topics for discussion, linking intellectual property protection with consumer safety.

For brands and cross-border sellers, the agenda offers a useful guide to the issues under examination. J&C recommends keeping a case file that connects each product and seller to dated screenshots, evidence of rights, complaints and platform responses. When an offer reappears, document its connection to the earlier complaint. A hearing notice or event report alone does not establish that this process has produced new rules on platform liability. Check the scope, commencement date and specific requirements of any subsequent formal instrument before changing enforcement or compliance procedures.

China’s Supreme People’s Court opened a consultation on 14 September on two draft judicial interpretations: one addressing which version of the Trademark Law applies to a dispute, the other covering judicial review of trademark registration and validity decisions. Comments are due by 28 October 2026. The revised law takes effect on 1 January 2027; the interpretations remain proposals. Under the transition draft, the relevant date would vary by proceeding, with review decisions, registration approval decisions and the start of revocation proceedings among the proposed reference points. Marks preliminarily published before the new law takes effect would retain the previous three-month opposition period.

The judicial review text addresses well-known mark protection, distinctiveness of foreign-language and three-dimensional signs, pre-emptive registrations and evidence of use. It also presents competing approaches to changes in facts after an administrative decision, leaving that issue open. J&C recommends mapping the key dates in pending cases against the proposed transition rules and keeping the underlying notices and decisions alongside evidence of consumer recognition, actual use and contacts between the parties. Those records can inform consultation responses, while litigation planning should be checked against the final rules once issued.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced through TSDR that multiple registrations appearing in the September 8, 2026 Trademark Official Gazette contained incorrect or missing registration numbers, preventing those matters from completing registration successfully. The USPTO has updated the status of affected cases and plans to correct the issue and reissue registration certificates in the September 15 issue. The problem appears to be a registration-processing and data error rather than a broad change to substantive examination outcomes, but it can still affect how firms confirm registration completion and manage downstream deadlines.

Practitioners should review matters handled in the September 8 batch and avoid relying solely on previously downloaded certificates or older records as proof that registration was completed. After September 15, the corrected certificate should be downloaded again and the registration number, registration date, and current TSDR status checked case by case before maintenance dates are recalibrated. Firms should not assume that all affected registration dates or related deadlines will move forward by the same amount; the corrected USPTO record should control.

WIPO has published revised currency-equivalent amounts for search fees charged by several International Searching Authorities. According to page 134 of the PCT Official Notices, from November the Korean Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) search fee is USD 325 for Korean-language documentation and USD 867 for English-language documentation; the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) amount is USD 104 for Russian-language documentation and USD 462 for English-language documentation; and Rospatent’s amount is USD 104 for Russian-language documentation and USD 520 for English-language documentation. These are equivalent amounts tied to particular authorities, languages and payment currencies, not a uniform worldwide increase in PCT fees.