Insights

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.

Turkey’s trademark cancellation regime for five years of non-use has moved beyond a procedural transition and into regular administrative enforcement before TÜRKPATENT. The official 2026 fee for a trademark cancellation request is TRY 35,320. Recent practice alerts underline the most consequential feature for rights holders: once the Office reaches a final cancellation decision through its written administrative process, that decision can be implemented immediately, and a subsequent court action against the administrative decision does not by itself suspend enforcement.

That changes the risk profile of non-use disputes. Trademark owners should have evidence of genuine use, the link between that evidence and the registered goods or services, and the relevant chronology organised before a challenge arrives; relying on later reconstruction is increasingly risky. For challengers, the TRY 35,320 filing cost raises the entry threshold, but the administrative route may still produce a faster practical effect than the former court-led model. Where judicial review is contemplated, rights holders should also assess whether separate interim relief is needed to preserve the registration while the case is pending.

Developments dated 10 September 2026 indicate that the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) and the Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDEC) have introduced a new framework aimed at online trademark squatting and counterfeiting, while placing more direct compliance duties on major e-commerce platforms. Where a mark is officially identified by MyIPO as a bad-faith trademark, platforms such as Shopee, Lazada Malaysia and TikTok Shop are expected not only to remove related listings but also to operate a blacklist mechanism that can restrict or shut down local stores using the disputed mark. For brand owners, platform enforcement is therefore becoming more closely tied to the outcome of trademark disputes rather than remaining a separate takedown process.

MyIPO is also reported to be opening an administrative fast-track for invalidation cases arising from e-commerce enforcement, with an intended timeline of roughly six to eight months instead of the more than one year often associated with ordinary proceedings. If implemented as described, the change could reduce the ability of bad-faith registrants to rely on procedural delay while continuing to trade online. Businesses operating in Malaysia should prepare evidence of first use, sales, promotion and chain of title early, and align platform complaints with invalidation or opposition strategies instead of treating each track as a standalone remedy.

A 7 September 2026 update indicates that the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Vietnam) is introducing a faster internal route for Madrid international registrations designating Vietnam. Where the listed goods and services fully match WIPO’s standard Nice Classification terminology and the case does not raise relative-ground conflicts, the file may be assigned to a “Green Lane,” avoiding a lengthy manual classification review. Eligible cases are expected to receive a Statement of Grant of Protection around three to four months earlier than under the ordinary processing path.

The practical point is straightforward: wording choices may now affect timing more directly. Applicants designating Vietnam through the Madrid System have a stronger reason to use accepted WIPO terms wherever commercially workable, because non-standard wording or conflict issues can still push a file back into the regular review track. The measure appears designed to reduce a persistent examination backlog rather than relax substantive trademark standards, so its real value will depend on how consistently the Green Lane is applied in practice.

On 8 September 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued implementation guidance aimed at improving the efficiency and coordination of patent and trademark examination in areas linked to artificial intelligence. For patent applications covering large models, algorithm architectures and inventions combining software and hardware, the guidance places clearer emphasis on alignment with data-security compliance and the lawful provenance of training data. The practical effect is that applicants may need to ensure that patent drafting, R&D records and internal data-governance documentation tell a consistent story, especially where the claimed technical contribution depends heavily on the collection, preparation or use of training datasets.

On the trademark side, the guidance further develops evidentiary standards in non-use cancellation proceedings, with particular attention to electronic evidence and attempts to manufacture a record of use through sham invoices, nominal transactions or defensive arrangements. The direction of travel is clear: isolated documents are likely to carry less persuasive weight than a traceable chain of genuine commercial use linking contracts, orders, payment records, logistics, online listings and promotional activity. For rights holders, that raises the value of disciplined evidence retention; for challengers, it creates more room to test whether the asserted use reflects real market activity rather than paperwork assembled to defeat cancellation.