Insights

The German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) has put digital technologies back at the centre of the patent debate. Its recent trend analysis shows continued growth in patent applications linked to digital key technologies, with particularly visible movement in computer technology, audiovisual technology and related fields. Within those categories, generative AI, machine learning, virtual modelling and industrial digital twins are becoming harder to separate from one another.

The point is not simply that more AI-related applications are being filed. The more practical issue is that DPMA’s approach to computer-implemented and AI-related inventions keeps drawing attention to “technical character”. Applicants seeking protection in Germany for generative AI or digital twin inventions will need to show more than model capability, business usefulness or data value. The application should explain the technical problem, the technical means used and the technical effect that can be assessed in examination.

With the 1 July 2026 Phase II start date approaching, EUIPO has issued transitional guidance on the EU design reform package, giving applicants a clearer route through the changeover in terminology, filing practice and procedural handling. The former registered Community design, commonly known as the RCD, will formally move into the new name and framework of the registered EU design, or REUD.

The most practical change is the removal of the Locarno class restriction for multiple design applications. Under the old approach, designs included in the same multiple application generally had to fall within the same Locarno class. Under the new framework, a company may place a watch in Class 10 and a bracelet in Class 11 within the same multiple application. For businesses managing wearables, accessories, packaging, digital interfaces and physical product shapes as one launch package, this is not a cosmetic reform. It can change filing lists, budget allocation and disclosure timing.

The Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) has reminded users that payments for patents, utility models and industrial designs must now be handled through the government’s e-Citizen platform. On the same public notice page, KIPI has also shared the draft Geographical Indications Bill 2026 and related public participation materials, placing a procedural payment change alongside a more substantive reform of origin-linked names.

The draft is significant because it seeks to give geographical indications a clearer domestic footing while reducing friction with trademark practice, including certification marks used through the Madrid System. If the proposal moves forward in its current direction, bad-faith attempts to register geographical names as trademarks may face a stronger basis for invalidation or cancellation. Rights holders in food, agriculture and traditional products should read this as a practical prompt: check names, sourcing claims and trademark filings before a local GI dispute becomes harder to unwind.

Egypt’s recently implemented Decisions No. 64 and 65 have drawn attention across the trademark and design community this week. Beyond the ordinary official fees, services relating to trademarks, commercial names, geographical indications and industrial designs are now subject to an additional fixed service fee of EGP 500. The measures also introduce a specialised corporate search service priced at EGP 2,000, while copies of historical expert reports may cost up to EGP 5,000.

The immediate issue is not only the size of each individual charge, but how often these charges may appear in day-to-day portfolio work. For a single filing, EGP 500 may look manageable. For companies handling renewals, recordals, searches, dispute files and multiple designs, the cumulative effect is more noticeable. Applicants active in Egypt should update their cost assumptions beyond filing fees alone, especially where older records or expert materials may be needed for enforcement, clearance or settlement strategy.

With the May filing cycle under way, ARIPO has moved to full implementation of its 2026 trade mark fee schedule. The electronic filing fee is now USD 160, while paper filing is USD 200. A new USD 100 opposition transmittal fee has also been introduced, and the period for designated states to issue refusals has been shortened from nine months to six months.

The fee changes are manageable for most applicants, but the shorter refusal window deserves closer attention. Businesses using ARIPO to seek protection across multiple African member states should review clearance work earlier, keep client instructions moving quickly, and avoid treating official notices as matters that can wait. The practical cost of delay may now be higher than the increase in filing fees.

Following the implementation of the 13th edition of the Nice Classification, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) has updated its Conflicting Goods and Services List and the related Conflicting Class Table. The change that deserves close attention is the wider treatment of Class 9 goods: software, electronics and digitally enabled products are now more visibly connected with traditional product categories when similarity is assessed.

This is guidance rather than a rigid rule, but it will affect how applicants read clearance results in New Zealand. A brand used for connected devices, software-supported consumer goods or platform-linked hardware may face a broader conflict field than a purely class-based search would suggest. For applicants, the practical step is simple: do not isolate Class 9 from the physical goods it supports or controls; review both sides together before filing.