Insights

Around 26 June 2026, several IP authorities pushed a familiar fraud back into view: messages claiming that a third party is about to file the recipient’s brand in the UK or EU unless an urgent paid instruction is given first. IPOPHL specifically warned about a UK-based outfit calling itself “Crown Mark” and said it had no official relationship with that entity or with claims that it was linked to IP offices in the Philippines, the United Kingdom, Australia or the European Union.

The important change is not simply that fake notices still exist. The script has become smarter. Instead of generic renewal invoices, the sender now mimics regulatory cooperation, borrows real lawyer identities and uses procedural language to create the illusion of an official escalation path. For companies without an in-house brand team, that can distort judgment very quickly.

On 25 June 2026, EUIPO said the 2026 SME Fund has moved past its halfway point. Under the first-come, first-served design of the scheme, some funding pots for trade marks and designs have already been exhausted, but vouchers for European and national prior art searches and for IP Scan remain open. For EU SMEs still weighing patent filing routes, that leaves a practical window to recover up to 75% of eligible official fees.

The mid-year picture also says something about priorities. The faster-moving subsidies were quickly absorbed, while the support that helps businesses test freedom to operate, patentability and filing strategy is still available. For companies planning expansion or only now turning R&D into filings, that remaining budget may be more useful than it first appears: it buys time for a better decision, not just a cheaper application.

CNIPA’s Trademark Office issued a notice dated June 4, 2026, effective June 5, changing how certain documents are served in three-year non-use cancellation proceedings involving Madrid international registrations designating China. The notice covers the request to submit evidence of use or explain justified non-use, as well as decisions and closure notices issued after a holder fails to respond in time; instead of sending those documents directly to the holder by paper mail, CNIPA will have WIPO’s International Bureau forward them electronically.

This is more than an administrative cleanup. For many Madrid holders, the decisive question is no longer whether a notice exists, but whether it reaches the right inbox, the WIPO-recorded representative and the China-facing team early enough to organize evidence and instructions. That is why the discussion has continued to intensify through late June: the weak point is moving from paper service to digital workflow, and a missed handoff can become a lapse problem very quickly.

As 1 July approaches, IP Australia has made two process signals hard to ignore. One is the reorganisation of patent examination teams across electrical, communications and computing technologies. The other is the start of a new excess-claims fee workflow, under which applicants will be reminded three months after requesting examination if their claim set still sits above the free threshold. These are not isolated administrative notices. Together, they change how applicants should think about timing, claim volume and technical positioning before examination really starts.

A third signal arrived on 26 June in a different form: IP Australia’s practice-facing article on using design rights to deal with copycats. That piece does not amend patent procedure, but it belongs in the same conversation. Read together, the recent Australian messaging is fairly coherent. Examination is being reorganised to fit cross-disciplinary filings more realistically, fee pressure is being made more predictable earlier in the process, and businesses are being reminded not to leave product appearance exposed while they focus only on utility patents.

Recent signals from the JPO and Korea's Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP, formerly KIPO) are best read as a shift in examination practice for AI inventions rather than a dramatic headline reform. No single new “AI patent statute” has suddenly appeared. But when the IP5 keeps deepening comparative materials on AI examination, the JPO expands its support structure for AI-related cases, and MOIP continues to formalize examiner exchange and AI-related examination frameworks, the practical message is hard to miss: an AI invention is less likely to survive on functional ambition alone and more likely to be tested on whether the specification explains a reproducible technical route.

For generative AI, large-model fine-tuning, data-processing and deployment claims, that matters immediately. Examiners are becoming more willing to ask how the claimed technical effect is actually achieved, what role the data or inference pipeline plays, which steps are indispensable, and whether the applicant has disclosed enough for a skilled person to carry the invention out without filling the core gap by guesswork. The pressure point is no longer just wording. It is evidentiary density.

On June 26, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) publicly warned businesses against a UK-linked outfit calling itself “Crown Mark”. The pitch was familiar in one sense and more sophisticated in another: a third party was supposedly about to file the recipient’s brand, and only urgent paid action could stop the damage. IPOPHL said it has no official relationship with that entity at all.

At almost the same moment, a second signal from the Philippines became harder to ignore. IPOPHL has been pressing for updates to the IP Code and related rules as technology changes faster, while AI strategy, valuation tools and guidance around digital and AI-linked assets move higher on the policy agenda. Read together, the message is broader than fraud prevention. It is about procedural discipline, ownership clarity and commercial readiness.