Insights

Effective January 1, 2026, the 13th edition of the Nice Classification (NCL 13-2026) introduced a set of changes that go well beyond editorial cleanup. Several commonly used goods were reclassified into new classes: spectacles, contact lenses and sunglasses moved to Class 10; electric toothbrushes moved to Class 21; heated clothing moved to Class 25; emergency and rescue vehicles moved to Class 12. Class 42 also added new terminology including “Artificial intelligence as a service (AIaaS).”

For businesses preparing new trademark filings, international extensions, renewals or portfolio reviews, these shifts matter because classification is not just a filing formality. It affects how goods and services are described, how clearance searches are framed, and how protection strategies are coordinated across jurisdictions. In practice, 2026 is becoming a reset point for trademark specification drafting rather than a routine annual update.

As of 1 March 2026, ARIPO’s major amendments to the Banjul Protocol framework have entered into force, reshaping how regional trademark filings will be budgeted, timed and managed. The most visible change is financial: the e-filing application fee has increased from USD 80 to USD 160, the paper filing fee from USD 100 to USD 200, the registration fee for each designated member state from USD 100 to USD 150, and the renewal fee from USD 100 to USD 200 per designated state.

But the reform is not only about higher charges. The new rules also introduce updated forms and a more structured alignment with ARIPO’s online filing environment, shorten the refusal period to six months, add a six-month exhibition priority claim, revise time-limit computation, impose a transmittal fee in opposition proceedings, and consolidate English as the official procedural language. For businesses using ARIPO as a multi-country trademark route in Africa, the reform signals a shift from convenience-driven filing to more disciplined, front-loaded decision-making.

On 10 March 2026, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on copyright and generative AI that sends a clear policy signal to the Commission and the market: if a generative AI service operates in or targets the EU, it should not be able to evade EU copyright rules simply because model training took place outside the Union. The resolution argues for a more enforceable connection between transparency duties, rightsholder reservations and practical enforcement, so that non-compliant providers do not gain a structural advantage over compliant competitors.

What makes the text especially significant is that it does not treat AI training as an isolated copyright question. Instead, it links licensing clarity, rightsholder bargaining power, media compensation and platform regulation into a single policy debate. For businesses, that suggests the compliance perimeter is expanding from model training to downstream uses, retrieval systems, traffic capture and monetisation design. For creators, publishers and news organisations, it is a sign that the EU is trying to build a more workable infrastructure for both exclusion and licensing.

On March 20, 2026, the White House released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence legislative recommendations, and the section on intellectual property immediately stood out. The document states that the Administration believes training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate U.S. copyright law, while also acknowledging contrary arguments and urging Congress not to interfere with the courts’ resolution of whether such training qualifies as fair use.

The framework is notable not only for its pro-innovation tone, but also for the second track it opens. Rather than treating copyright as a simple binary fight between unrestricted training and outright prohibition, it invites Congress to explore licensing frameworks or collective rights systems that could allow rights holders to negotiate compensation from AI providers. Together with its proposal for federal protection against unauthorized AI-generated digital replicas, the framework sketches a more layered U.S. approach to AI governance—one that may reshape how creators, platforms, and model developers position themselves in the next phase of the debate.

Trademark costs are moving up again in two important common-law jurisdictions, and the 2026 changes in the United Kingdom and Canada deserve closer attention than a simple fee table comparison. The UK Intellectual Property Office has confirmed that, from 1 April 2026, the online fee for filing a trade mark application will rise from £170 to £205, while the renewal fee will increase from £200 to £245. In Canada, the current CIPO official fee schedule shows that, from 1 January 2026, several trademark-related fees increased under the annual adjustment mechanism, including the online first-class filing fee from C$478.15 to C$491.06, the opposition fee from C$1,085.76 to C$1,115.08, and the online first-class renewal fee from C$579.42 to C$595.06.

That matters because many businesses still encounter older market summaries describing Canada’s change as a move from C$330 to C$390. Those figures no longer reflect the current official fee schedule now applied by CIPO. For brand owners, the real story is not merely that two offices have raised fees at around the same time, but that filing, maintaining and contesting trademark rights is becoming more expensive across the lifecycle of a portfolio. This is a budgeting issue, a timing issue and, increasingly, a strategy issue.

The USPTO’s supplemental guidance on design patent examination, effective March 13, 2026, brings an important clarification for applicants seeking protection for computer-generated interfaces and icons. The Office now makes clear that applicants are not required to depict the physical device in the drawings where the title and claim already identify the design as an interface or icon “for” a particular device, system, or display. It also expressly confirms that projection-based and hologram interfaces may qualify as design patent subject matter when they are tied to an article of manufacture rather than presented as free-floating transient imagery.

For design-driven technology companies, this is more than a drafting tweak. The guidance signals a broader modernization of examination logic for GUI-related designs, especially in mixed-reality, spatial computing, automotive displays, and other environments where the visual interface may be perceived apart from a conventional screen. At the same time, the guidance does not eliminate the statutory requirement that the claimed design be applied to, or embodied in, an article of manufacture; instead, it clarifies how that relationship may now be shown with greater flexibility in titles, claims, and drawings.