Insights

According to a USPTO announcement and Ghanaian reporting published on 14 July, the Ghana Industrial Property Office (GHIPO), under the Office of the Registrar of Companies, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office signed a statement of intent in Geneva on 9 July 2026 concerning an Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) arrangement. Ghana is the first African country to move forward with this type of cooperation with the USPTO. Under the proposed mechanism, an applicant holding a granted US patent and a corresponding Ghanaian application may request accelerated grant in Ghana, while GHIPO may draw on the USPTO’s search and patentability work but must still assess compliance with Ghanaian law.

The practical appeal is clear: less duplicated examination and a more predictable route to grant. It is not, however, an automatic extension of US patent rights into Ghana. The USPTO has indicated that GHIPO will publish implementation guidance and procedural details separately. Applicants should therefore review claim correspondence, local-law limitations and documentary requirements before changing filing or prosecution strategy. For technology companies targeting West Africa, the arrangement could reduce waiting time and prosecution cost, but its real value will depend on the eligibility rules and the way GHIPO applies the forthcoming guidance.

According to a 14 July 2026 report by Spoor & Fisher, the Kenya IP Authority Bill, 2026 has been introduced in the National Assembly. It proposes merging the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) and the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) into a single Kenya Intellectual Property Authority (KIPA), bringing patents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyright and anti-counterfeiting functions under one institutional framework. The bill also addresses mandatory IP recordation for imports, definitions for AI-assisted and AI-generated inventions, and a unified tribunal for IP disputes and appeals.

If enacted, the reform would amount to more than an administrative reorganisation. A single authority could reduce procedural overlap and improve coordination, but the practical effect will depend on the final parliamentary text and transitional rules for existing applications, registrations, enforcement matters and import records. Rights holders, importers and AI-focused businesses operating in Kenya should follow the legislative process closely and avoid treating the proposed measures as effective law before enactment and implementation.

According to an Adams & Adams update published on 16 July 2026, Kenya’s High Court has set aside a directive issued by the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry on 30 September 2025. The directive required the registration, renewal and cancellation of trademarks, patents, utility models and industrial designs to receive prior approval from the KIPI Board. In Law Society of Kenya v. Principal Secretary, the Court found that the Principal Secretary had exceeded the limits of the office by reallocating powers already assigned by statute, restoring the authority of the Registrar of Trade Marks and KIPI management.

The ruling should shorten an approval chain that had introduced delay and uncertainty into routine IP administration. It also draws a useful line between board oversight and statutory decision-making. Applicants and rights holders should nevertheless watch how KIPI handles matters already affected by the directive, particularly any backlog, reconsideration requests or transitional measures.

Ethiopia’s Intellectual Property Authority (EIPA) is moving forward with revisions to the country’s trademark registration and protection proclamation, according to an update published by Adams & Adams on 16 July 2026. Addis Ababa University prepared the draft amendments, which were discussed with stakeholders in June 2026. Adams & Adams submitted general comments addressing, among other issues, the alignment between implementing regulations and the primary legislation, application formalities and the clarity of procedural requirements.

The reform remains under consultation, but the practical details will determine whether the revised framework improves predictability for applicants. Inconsistent requirements across the main law, implementing rules and filing practice could lead to additional formalities, uneven examination timelines or uncertainty over supporting documents. Businesses planning trademark filings in Ethiopia should therefore monitor the final text closely and preserve flexibility in filing documents, budgets and local procedural arrangements.

According to an update published by Adams & Adams on 16 July 2026, Libya’s Commercial Registry Authority has resumed electronic publication of trademark notices through its official website. The 2026 electronic trademark gazette was issued on 14 May and covers applications numbered 55261 to 57597. Third parties may file oppositions online within 30 days of publication. Gazette publication had previously been suspended for an extended period, leaving the opposition process effectively stalled.

The restart restores an important procedural checkpoint for applicants and rights holders, but the timetable for clearing the backlog remains uncertain. Businesses with pending Libyan applications, or portfolios that require watching services, should review the current gazette promptly and maintain regular monitoring. A 30-day deadline leaves little room for delayed internal escalation, particularly where local evidence and filing instructions must be assembled quickly.

According to an update published by Adams & Adams on 16 July 2026, Sudan’s Intellectual Property Administrative Registrar has resumed strict application of section 19(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1969. A registration may now be renewed only within the statutory six-month grace period following expiry, subject to the applicable late fee. Renewal requests filed after that period will no longer be accepted. The more flexible practice adopted during conflict-related operational disruption has therefore come to an end.

The change removes much of the room for retrospective correction. Owners of Sudanese registrations should review expiry dates, agent records and payment workflows now, particularly where internal approvals take time. Reliance on the temporary post-deadline practice is no longer prudent; missing the grace period may require a fresh application and could create a gap in protection, expose the mark to intervening rights and increase overall cost.