Insights

WIPO’s Marrakesh Treaty Notification No. 107 confirms that Niger deposited its instrument of accession on 20 July 2026, with the Treaty due to enter into force for Niger on 20 October 2026. Follow-up institutional reporting in August brought the development back into the regional IP agenda, but the formal legal timeline is set by WIPO’s notification. Niger is therefore moving from accession to implementation: its copyright framework must provide the limitations and exceptions needed for blind, visually impaired and otherwise print-disabled persons, together with the legal basis for qualifying cross-border exchanges of accessible-format copies.

The significance goes beyond adding another Contracting Party. Niger is also a member of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), whose Bangui Agreement contains common rules on literary and artistic property in Annex VII. The practical question is how Niger will align those regional copyright rules, its domestic institutions and the Treaty’s minimum mandatory obligations, turning a legal entitlement to make accessible copies into procedures that libraries, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, publishers and right holders can actually use.

Trademark operations in Gaza are beginning to restart after a prolonged disruption. An update published by regional IP practice CWB on 21 August 2026 reports that the Gaza Trademark Office issued an administrative decision on 10 August allowing pending trademark renewals to be filed, with the corresponding official fees paid, up to 11 September 2026 without additional late-renewal fees. Earlier practitioner notices in late July also indicated that core services including new applications, renewals, publication and recordal work had started to resume.

For rights holders, the practical issue is not simply that the office is “open” again. A long interruption leaves a backlog of renewals, recordals, pending filings and procedural questions, while the fee-relief window is comparatively short. Companies therefore need to identify which registrations should be acted on before early September, which matters still require procedural clarification, and how to avoid concentrating filing and payment risk in the final days.

A notable shift is emerging in Turkish trademark examination in late August 2026. According to recent decision reports circulated by Turkish trademark practitioners, TÜRKPATENT examiners have begun issuing ex officio refusals at the absolute-grounds stage against certain domestic applications that reproduce well-known foreign brands in an essentially identical form, whether in wording, logo design or both. In the most blatant cases, the application may now be stopped before publication, without forcing the genuine brand owner to pay for and initiate an opposition.

The development should be treated as a tightening of examination practice rather than as a formal rewriting of Türkiye’s statutory bad-faith framework. TÜRKPATENT’s published process still separates formal examination, absolute-ground review under Article 5 of the Industrial Property Code, publication, opposition and review. Bad faith remains closely associated with opposition and invalidation routes under the existing legal structure. The practical change is narrower but potentially important: examiners appear more willing to use existing absolute-ground tools to intercept highly conspicuous copycat filings earlier in the process.

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) has moved its patent and trademark agent recognition framework from transition into practical enforcement. Memorandum Circulars No. 12 and No. 13 were not newly issued in 2026: both took effect on 22 August 2024 and were publicly highlighted by IPOPHL on 28 August 2024. The rules allowed 24 months for patent representatives and 18 months for trademark representatives to transition, meaning the trademark window expired in February 2026 and the patent window closed on 22 August 2026.

For applicants and IP firms, the question is no longer whether the Philippines will introduce formal recognition of non-lawyer agents. The immediate issues are which professionals have secured recognition, how firms will reassign work where recognition is still incomplete, and how training, examinations, application requirements and three-year renewals will affect pricing and case management. IPOPHL’s plan to maintain a public list of recognized professionals also makes credential verification a routine part of local counsel due diligence.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) introduced a pilot through Patents Circular No. 4/2024 on 19 August 2024 allowing eligible applicants to obtain up to 18 months of additional time to request a search and/or examination report without paying the official extension-of-time fee. IPOS then extended the pilot for another year through Circular No. 4/2026 dated 12 August 2026. The current window covers relevant prescribed deadlines falling between 1 September 2024 and 31 August 2027.

The measure is more significant than a simple fee waiver. It gives applicants additional time to assess overseas prosecution results, commercial traction and portfolio priorities before committing to the next stage of Singapore examination. But the boundary matters: the waiver applies to the Patents Form 45 extension request, not to the PF11 or PF12 search and examination fees themselves, and it does not create a general suspension of all patent deadlines.

On 20 August 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration’s Trademark Office was reported to have joined major domestic and cross-border e-commerce platforms in issuing guidance on coordinated action against bad-faith trademark registration and enforcement abuse. Under the framework described, agencies or right holders placed on CNIPA’s key monitoring list for malicious trademark squatting and stockpiling may face restrictions on using those marks to initiate intellectual property complaints on participating platforms. The policy direction is significant because it moves enforcement beyond the validity of the trademark itself and into the mechanics of online complaint systems.

The more immediate relief for genuine overseas brands is a temporary safeguard during unresolved ownership disputes. Where a brand can provide a CNIPA-stamped notice confirming acceptance into an expedited opposition or invalidation channel, an e-commerce platform may grant the affected store a protective exemption from link disconnection for up to six months. The measure would not decide the trademark dispute in advance, but it could prevent a squatter from using a formally registered mark to interrupt sales before the underlying case is resolved. Platform coverage, documentary requirements and the operation of the six-month period should still be checked against the final official text and each platform’s implementation rules.