Insights

On 8 July 2026, during WIPO’s 68th series of meetings of the Assemblies, Tanzania’s Deputy Permanent Representative in Geneva, Ambassador Hoyce Temu, spoke in the country’s national capacity and aligned Tanzania with statements delivered by South Africa for the African Group and Nepal for the Least Developed Countries Group. Tanzania called for a more inclusive, balanced and forward-looking intellectual property system, arguing that artificial intelligence could accelerate innovation and economic transformation only if developing economies also gain practical access to capacity building, technology transfer and usable IP tools. Its cited priorities included IP management clinics for SMEs and start-ups, technology-transfer programmes for universities and research institutions, and stronger patent examination capacity.

The intervention does not amount to a new WIPO standard on AI patentability, nor do the public materials show that the Assemblies adopted a compulsory licensing mechanism or an “AI green channel.” Its policy significance lies elsewhere: it shifts part of the AI ownership debate away from inventorship alone and toward whether technology can circulate, whether local firms can afford to use it, and whether the patent system can support participation rather than merely recognise rights. The next test will be whether WIPO turns the language of inclusion into durable examination support, licensing and transfer platforms, and programmes tailored to SMEs in developing countries.

The UAE Ministry of Economy and Tourism issued mid-year practical guidance on 7 July 2026 clarifying the scope of its one-day trademark examination service. Applicants may select accelerated examination for AED 2,250, compared with AED 750 for standard examination, but the one-day promise relates to the examination stage rather than the entire registration cycle. Publication, opposition and final registration steps remain separate, and the accelerated route does not relax substantive review.

The guidance also sharpens the focus on classification quality. With the UAE applying the 13th edition of the Nice Classification in 2026, descriptions covering AI software services, virtual goods, NFT-related offerings and sustainable packaging materials are expected to be more precise. The practical consequence is clear: speed now depends less on paying an additional fee and more on whether clearance, classification and drafting have been completed properly before filing.

Developments reported around 8 July 2026 by the Israel Patent Office and in related case law further clarify the boundary for software- and AI-related patent claims. Following the position confirmed in the 2026 DABUS decision, an inventor named in an Israeli patent application must still be a natural person. On patent eligibility, merely implementing business logic, administrative processes or abstract rules with AI is unlikely to be enough. Applicants need to link the algorithm to a specific technical problem, system architecture and measurable result, such as stronger data security, lower computing-resource use or more efficient hardware communications.

The practical consequence is that evidence and drafting strategy matter earlier. A description focused only on the model, training method or commercial outcome may leave the technical contribution underdeveloped; specifications should explain constraints, processing steps and how the claimed effect can be tested. AI software that improves energy efficiency or reduces computational or device-level power consumption may also qualify for Israel’s green-technology fast-track, which does not carry an additional acceleration fee. Faster handling does not relax novelty, inventive-step or technical-character requirements, so the route should be treated as a timing tool rather than a shortcut to grant.

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 three 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.