Insights

On 9 July 2026, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TÜRKPATENT) issued a second-half practice and fee compliance notice. On the trademark side, office-led revocation proceedings for marks unused for five consecutive years are now operating as a routine mechanism, increasing exposure for defensive registrations that lack a credible record of genuine use. Rights holders should assemble evidence tied to the relevant goods or services, dates and commercial channels before a challenge arises. For patents, the office reiterated that the sharply increased 2026 official fees—reported at roughly 20% to 25% higher—for PCT national-phase entry and validation of European patents in Turkey are being enforced strictly. Earlier Turkish Supreme Court case law also leaves little room to restore rights after the EP validation deadline has been missed.

The practical message is less about doctrinal novelty than about discipline. Businesses should reassess defensive trademark portfolios and retain registrations that serve a real commercial purpose and can be supported by continuing evidence of use. PCT and EP matters require the same approach: budgets, translations, payment instructions and filing deadlines should be fixed well in advance and checked independently. In Turkey, a late-stage correction may no longer be a realistic risk-control strategy.

The Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) is preparing systems for the implementation of the Geographical Indications Protection Law and its executive framework, which are expected to take effect in mid-November 2026. The work is being linked to a broader cultural and handicraft protection strategy, encouraging makers in fields such as weaving, woodworking and leathercraft to review collective marks and industrial design protection before the GI registration system is fully operational.

The practical message is to build a layered rights strategy rather than wait for a single new regime. Collective marks can govern membership, origin claims and conditions of use, while industrial designs can protect specific shapes, ornamentation and product appearance; a future GI can then address the connection between regional reputation and traditional production. Producers should document provenance, design ownership, technical specifications and licensing rules now, since delayed preparation may leave traditional elements exposed to bad-faith filings, imitation and commercial misuse.

On 6 July 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued updated implementation guidance for trademark cancellation actions based on three consecutive years of non-use. The revised approach lowers the applicant’s initial evidentiary burden: once a basic market investigation shows no trace of genuine commercial use across relevant goods, services and sales channels, the proceeding is expected to move more quickly toward requiring the proprietor to explain and prove use. Rather than a complete reversal of the burden of proof, the change is better understood as a stronger evidentiary obligation on the owner after the applicant has completed a reasonable preliminary search.

The practical effect is that token use will carry less weight. Isolated sales, transactions arranged mainly to defend a registration, or a single advertising webpage may no longer be enough to preserve the mark. Cancellation applicants should still document the scope, timing and channels of their market checks carefully. Registrants, meanwhile, should retain invoices, orders, logistics records, distributor materials, advertising data and online sales evidence that can be tied to the specific registered goods or services. The procedure may now be simpler to start, but the outcome will still turn on whether the owner can show genuine, lawful use at a credible commercial scale.

Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), together with the Federation of Thai Industries, held its first practical briefing on partial design protection around 9 July 2026 as part of the country’s domestic preparations for joining the Hague Agreement. The proposed framework would allow applicants to claim protection for a specific visible part of a product by combining solid and dotted lines, rather than having to rely on the novelty of the product’s overall appearance.

If implemented as outlined, the change should make design filings more adaptable for smartphone interfaces, automotive components and distinctive packaging. The practical gain will depend heavily on drawing discipline: applicants will need consistent views, a clear distinction between claimed and unclaimed matter, and filing strategies that avoid leaving the protected boundary open to interpretation. The reform is therefore not only an expansion of eligibility; it also raises the importance of how the design is depicted.

China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) announced on 6 July 2026 that a new bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway pilot will begin on 1 August. Applicants will be able to rely on qualifying examination work from one office to seek accelerated treatment of a corresponding application before the other. The new route will operate alongside the existing IP5 PPH framework, under aligned eligibility conditions, with no fixed end date.

The bilateral channel gives applicants another practical option for coordinating parallel Chinese and European cases, but acceleration is not the same as easier examination. Claim correspondence, timing and the scope of the allowable subject matter will still determine whether a request is useful. Businesses should therefore review the two applications together before filing, including likely amendments, divisional strategy and response schedules. The procedural benefit will be greatest where the claim sets were drafted with cross-office consistency from the outset.

On 9 July 2026, India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and IP Australia signed an access agreement for the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) as part of the outcomes announced at the third India–Australia Annual Summit. Under the TKDL access framework, Australian patent examiners may use the database on a confidential basis for search and examination, drawing on a large body of documented traditional medicine formulations and related literature. IP Australia had already referred to TKDL as a non-patent literature resource in its examination guidance; the new agreement gives that access a clearer institutional footing.

The practical effect is likely to be felt most strongly in applications covering herbal extracts, biological formulations, combination therapies and derivative pharmaceutical uses. Examiners should be better placed to identify prior art that was previously dispersed across traditional medicine sources, making novelty, inventive step and claimed technical effects harder to establish. The legal patentability tests have not changed, but the evidence available to apply them has. Applicants should strengthen pre-filing traditional knowledge searches and provide more precise support for extraction methods, formulation ratios, unexpected effects and reproducible data; minor variations on known traditional formulations will face a more demanding examination record.