Insights

China’s Supreme People’s Court opened a consultation on 14 September on two draft judicial interpretations: one addressing which version of the Trademark Law applies to a dispute, the other covering judicial review of trademark registration and validity decisions. Comments are due by 28 October 2026. The revised law takes effect on 1 January 2027; the interpretations remain proposals. Under the transition draft, the relevant date would vary by proceeding, with review decisions, registration approval decisions and the start of revocation proceedings among the proposed reference points. Marks preliminarily published before the new law takes effect would retain the previous three-month opposition period.

The judicial review text addresses well-known mark protection, distinctiveness of foreign-language and three-dimensional signs, pre-emptive registrations and evidence of use. It also presents competing approaches to changes in facts after an administrative decision, leaving that issue open. JCIPO recommends mapping the key dates in pending cases against the proposed transition rules and keeping the underlying notices and decisions alongside evidence of consumer recognition, actual use and contacts between the parties. Those records can inform consultation responses, while litigation planning should be checked against the final rules once issued.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced through TSDR that multiple registrations appearing in the September 8, 2026 Trademark Official Gazette contained incorrect or missing registration numbers, preventing those matters from completing registration successfully. The USPTO has updated the status of affected cases and plans to correct the issue and reissue registration certificates in the September 15 issue. The problem appears to be a registration-processing and data error rather than a broad change to substantive examination outcomes, but it can still affect how firms confirm registration completion and manage downstream deadlines.

Practitioners should review matters handled in the September 8 batch and avoid relying solely on previously downloaded certificates or older records as proof that registration was completed. After September 15, the corrected certificate should be downloaded again and the registration number, registration date, and current TSDR status checked case by case before maintenance dates are recalibrated. Firms should not assume that all affected registration dates or related deadlines will move forward by the same amount; the corrected USPTO record should control.

WIPO has published revised currency-equivalent amounts for search fees charged by several International Searching Authorities. According to page 134 of the PCT Official Notices, from November the Korean Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) search fee is USD 325 for Korean-language documentation and USD 867 for English-language documentation; the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) amount is USD 104 for Russian-language documentation and USD 462 for English-language documentation; and Rospatent’s amount is USD 104 for Russian-language documentation and USD 520 for English-language documentation. These are equivalent amounts tied to particular authorities, languages and payment currencies, not a uniform worldwide increase in PCT fees.

South Africa’s Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) has reinforced two linked priorities in early September: moving more interactions onto digital channels and requiring companies to keep their registered office and physical address details accurate. In a notice issued on 7 September, CIPC warned that businesses that relocate without updating their records risk having legal notices, court documents, compliance correspondence and other official communications sent to obsolete addresses. CIPC has also announced the closure of its Johannesburg self-service centre from 18 September while continuing to direct users toward eServices and other online channels.

The practical point is straightforward: address data is no longer a minor housekeeping item. If a company changes premises, changes agents or stops using a previously registered location, its CIPC record should be reviewed promptly. Outdated information can create compliance exposure and, more importantly, can leave a business unaware of litigation, objections or regulatory action until deadlines have already passed. As CIPC reduces reliance on physical service points, companies should treat registered addresses, contact details and service information as part of routine compliance controls rather than static filing data.

Regional IP practitioners again highlighted on 11 September 2026 a significant UAE Federal Supreme Court trademark ruling handled by Habib Al Mulla and Partners. The Court held that genuine prior commercial use can prevail over a later registration for the same mark, even where the earlier user's own registration had lapsed for non-renewal. It also upheld the cancellation of the conflicting registration and rejected procedural objections raised by the later registrant; the timing of the challenge within the applicable five-year period was an important feature of the case.

The practical message is clear: a UAE trademark certificate is not necessarily conclusive against an earlier user who can prove genuine commercial use. Brand owners should preserve invoices, sales records, advertising materials, distribution documents and other evidence showing when and how a mark was used, while still keeping registrations and renewals in good order. The decision strengthens the evidential position of businesses facing opportunistic filings or bad-faith registrations, but it should not be read as a substitute for timely filing and portfolio maintenance.

This article updates our report of 17 August, “Saudi Madrid Entry Sets an 18-Month Refusal Window”.

Saudi Arabia is sharpening the operational framework for Madrid System designations before the Madrid Protocol takes effect in the Kingdom on 8 October 2026. WIPO and the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP) have confirmed that Saudi Arabia will use an 18-month period for notifying provisional refusals and will charge individual fees for designations. SAIP has also indicated that requests to divide an international registration will not be accepted under the Saudi national framework, and related merger procedures arising from such divisions are likewise unavailable.

For applicants, the practical consequence is straightforward: Saudi designations may remain under examination longer than under the default 12-month period, while a problematic class or subset of goods and services cannot simply be carved out through division to let the rest move ahead separately. Filing strategy therefore matters more at the drafting stage. Applicants planning to designate Saudi Arabia should review specifications carefully, budget separately for Saudi individual fees, and avoid assuming that all Madrid post-registration tools available elsewhere will operate in the same way in the Kingdom.