Insights

As China’s National Intellectual Property Publicity Week ran through April 20–26, CNIPA further clarified the latest direction of the Trademark Law revision. The draft continues to target malicious trademark filings, the clean-up of unused or hoarded marks, and the registration of new subject matter such as motion marks. In practice, two provisions are drawing the most attention: draft Article 18, which would refuse applications filed without a genuine intent to use and clearly beyond normal business needs, and draft Article 53, which would allow administrative penalties of up to RMB 100,000 for malicious applications that cause negative impact.

For brand owners, the message is becoming harder to ignore. The next phase of Chinese trademark practice may no longer focus only on whether a filing is technically registrable, but also on whether the applicant can justify a real business rationale and a credible path to use. That puts defensive filings, bulk stockpiling and overly aggressive registration strategies under greater pressure, while also showing that China is trying to modernize its trademark regime by opening the door to motion marks without loosening scrutiny over filing abuse.

By late April 2026, the UK government is still maintaining the position set out in its 18 March Copyright and Artificial Intelligence report: the previously favoured route of a broad text and data mining (TDM) exception combined with a rightsholder opt-out is no longer its preferred option. In practical terms, that means the UK has stepped back from giving AI training a fast, low-friction copyright pathway through legislation.

Just as important, the government has not moved to the opposite extreme. It has openly said that it currently has “no preferred option” and is instead leaning toward more balanced tools such as market-led licensing, training transparency, technical standards and AI output labelling. For the creative industries, that is at least a temporary brake on the idea of “broad exception first, corrections later”; for AI companies, it means the next phase of competition will depend not only on model capability, but also on how well they can evidence data provenance, rights clearance and credible compliance.

WIPO announced on April 20, 2026 that Madrid e-Filing is now available in Brazil. Brazil is the first country in Latin America to offer the service and the latest Madrid System member to join the Madrid e-Filing network, bringing the total number of participating members to 41. Through Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), applicants can now file international trademark applications online and handle subsequent communications and irregularity responses in a more direct digital workflow.

Taiwan’s TIPO has recently sharpened two different procedural tools in parallel. On the trademark side, its accelerated examination mechanism has been in effect since May 1, 2024, allowing applicants with an urgent need for rights to seek faster review by showing urgency and paying an additional fee; in general, the first examination notice may arrive in about two months after filing. TIPO then supplemented the framework through revised procedural examination guidelines effective December 1, 2025, further clarifying filing requirements and payment options for accelerated trademark examination. On the patent side, revised directions on deferral of substantive examination took effect on January 1, 2026: invention patents may now defer examination for up to five years and design patents for up to two years, each generally on a one-time basis, with added rules on when deferral may be dismissed or terminated.

Seen together, these updates show a more deliberately differentiated TIPO toolkit. For trademarks, the policy logic is speed for applicants facing real commercial timing pressure; for patents, it is flexibility for applicants trying to align examination costs and portfolio timing with commercialization strategy. For businesses, the practical lesson is not simply that one track is faster and the other slower, but that branding timelines and technology-filing strategy need to be coordinated earlier. The stronger the applicant is at deciding which marks need speed and which patent assets need optionality, the more effectively procedure turns into competitive planning.

Sierra Leone’s modernized Trade Mark Regulations supporting the Trade Marks Act 2014 have now entered into force, giving clearer procedural structure to filing, examination, publication, opposition, and related follow-on steps. For trade mark applicants, the importance of this development lies not merely in filling procedural gaps, but in moving local practice toward a more predictable administrative framework in which timing, evidence, and contested proceedings can be managed with greater clarity. In that sense, Sierra Leone’s system is becoming more aligned with the kind of examination-and-opposition architecture now commonly seen in contemporary trade mark administration.

From a practical-commentary perspective, the value of these Regulations is less about any single new concept than about connecting examination standards, publication mechanics, and opposition pathways into a fuller procedural chain. For foreign brand owners looking at Sierra Leone, that is a sign that clearance, filing sequence, watch services, and opposition strategy should be handled earlier and more deliberately. As procedure becomes more structured, a “file first and fix later” approach becomes harder to justify; that is generally good news for registration quality and for the transparency of trade mark disputes.

Libya’s trademark office has reportedly abolished the former annual renewal option and replaced it with a new renewal policy requiring renewals to be filed for a fixed 10-year term in one go. In practical terms, that shifts renewal spending from a staggered model to a single larger payment, significantly increasing the absolute upfront cost at the renewal stage and putting more pressure on right holders’ budgeting and cash-flow planning.