Insights

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.

The Australian Government has further detailed its latest IP systems simplification package, with two changes standing out for applicants and rights holders. The first would replace the current Time to Acceptance model with a more responsive examination timetable, closer in spirit to the US approach. In practice, patent applicants could face shorter reply windows after an examination report, such as a two-month period for response, alongside tighter limits on the number of formal replies.

The second proposal would allow patents and designs to use “virtual marking” through QR codes, barcodes or web addresses instead of relying only on physical markings on products or packaging. That may reduce the cost of keeping marking information current, especially for companies with changing patent portfolios or multiple product lines. It also creates a new housekeeping issue: online marking pages must be accurate, durable and easy to audit. The proposals are not final rules, but Australian filings and post-grant product practices should already be reviewed with these possible timing and marking changes in mind.

On 5 May, 32 South Korean copyright and creator organisations issued a joint statement opposing the government’s “use first, settle later” approach under the Korea AI Action Plan. The proposal is framed as a way to accelerate AI development by widening room for fair use, but creator groups argue that it would weaken their ability to control how their works are used.

The dispute is not merely about compensation rates. It goes to the starting point of copyright bargaining: whether AI developers should obtain permission before using protected works, or whether mass use can be normalised first and priced afterwards. That question is likely to shape the next phase of South Korea’s copyright reform debate.

CNIPA this week issued the Annual Work Guide for the Demonstration Programme on Building China into an IP Powerhouse (2026). The policy signal is fairly direct: assessment should move further towards patent quality and industrialisation, rather than simple filing-count targets. The guide calls for patent quality and patent commercialisation to be emphasised in project reviews, institutional evaluation, enterprise recognition and talent assessment, while avoiding the use of patent numbers as a stand-alone benchmark. For local authorities, parks, universities and demonstration enterprises, filing volume alone will carry less weight; pre-filing assessment, conversion potential and claim stability will matter more in practice.

The overseas risk agenda is also becoming more concrete. The guide refers to monitoring and early-warning work in high-risk areas such as cross-border e-commerce and trademark squatting, and asks demonstration enterprises and relevant participants to conduct overseas IP compliance self-checks for export products. Exporters and online sellers should not wait until a platform complaint, customs detention or foreign lawyer’s letter appears. Target-market trademark searches, design and patent clearance, and watch services for bad-faith brand filings now need to sit much earlier in the go-to-market checklist.