Insights

Colombia’s Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) has recently released three industrial property signals that look separate on the surface but are more revealing when read together. First, SIC has updated 2026 industrial property procedure fees: Resolution No. 103386 of 9 December 2025 adjusted the relevant 2026 fees and expressly took effect on 1 January 2026, while Resolution No. 6167 of 30 January 2026 further modified 2026 industrial property rates. Second, AI use in trade mark searching and examination is maturing quickly, with the wider IP system embedding image similarity search, Vienna Classification assistance, automated text-mark retrieval, and pre-examination information extraction more deeply into routine work. Third, SIC’s External Circular No. 002 of 2025 imposed compliance expectations for technology-transfer processes involving personal data or technologies designed to process personal data, and a February 2026 legal interpretation further clarified questions of international data flows, role allocation, contractual structure, and demonstrable accountability.

Read separately, those developments can easily be reduced to surface-level conclusions: a new fee table, faster AI tools, and another layer of compliance for technology transfer. Read together, however, they point to something more consequential. Colombia’s industrial property environment is no longer being shaped only around filing, payment, and procedural progression. It is moving toward a broader governance structure organised around fees, data, contracts, and provable responsibility. For businesses that rely on trade marks, patents, technology deployment, SaaS licensing, brand licensing, and cross-border data flows, this is not a collection of isolated updates. It is a regulatory signal that internal workflows now need redesign.

Egypt’s Egyptian Intellectual Property Authority (EGIPA) has recently updated official fees and introduced new service charges through Decisions No. 64 and 65 of 2026. According to professional summaries of the official notice, all services provided by the Central Administration for Trade Marks — including those relating to trade marks, trade names, geographical indications, and industrial designs — now carry an additional fixed surcharge of EGP 500 on top of the otherwise applicable fees. The update also introduces a specialised company search service priced at EGP 2,000, together with new charges for official copies of earlier expert reports, minutes, case files, and complaints: EGP 5,000 for matters recorded up to 2024 and EGP 3,000 for those recorded up to 2025. Practice updates also report that these changes took effect on 5 April 2026.

It is easy to read this as a simple headline about higher official fees in Egypt. That reading would miss the deeper point. What matters is not only that one filing or one service now costs more, but that EGIPA appears to be pushing trade mark-related procedure further away from a “file once, pay once” administrative model and toward a system that places more weight on search, records access, procedural services, and ongoing portfolio management. For businesses that rely on trade mark filings, renewals, amendments, monitoring, office interaction, and evidence retrieval, the budgeting logic for Egypt is being rewritten.

Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) announced on 8 April 2026 that Director-General Oramon Sapthaweetham led a Thai delegation together with the National Innovation Agency (NIA) to the ASEAN IP Office Leaders Retreat held in Bali on 5 April. According to the DIP’s announcement, the meeting discussed how ASEAN intellectual property offices should prepare for geopolitical, economic, social, political, technological, and environmental shifts over the next 5 to 10 years. Participants also received analysis from WIPO experts on the 2025 Global Innovation Index (GII) in order to help improve performance in the current year. Related coverage further noted that ASEAN IP offices need stronger readiness in modern technological tools, human resources and examination capacity, as well as the legal and regulatory frameworks required to support future development.

If this is read only as another item of regional meeting news, its policy significance is easy to underestimate. The more important signal from Thailand’s DIP is not simply that it continues to participate in ASEAN cooperation. It is that intellectual property governance is being placed more explicitly inside a national innovation-competitiveness framework. The IP office is no longer being described merely as a back-office institution that receives filings, records rights, and processes examinations. It is increasingly expected to carry a wider role involving digital upgrading, innovation-ranking improvement, regional coordination, and the transformation of industrial and business-facing services. For businesses that depend on trade marks, patents, copyright, geographical indications, and cross-border brand positioning, this suggests that Thailand’s IP environment is moving from procedural management toward capacity governance.

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) has launched National IP Month 2026 in April under the theme “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!” Around the same period, IPOPHL also reported that total IP filings in 2025 reached 53,231, up 2.0% from 2024 and a new record, with stronger patent, utility model and industrial design activity helping offset a slight dip in trademark filings. Taken together, the two announcements suggest that the Philippines is pushing both public-facing IP awareness and innovation-oriented protection at the same time.

The sports theme is more than a publicity device. Sports increasingly sits at the intersection of trademarks, copyright, design, merchandising and licensing, while the filings data points to a broader policy message: IPOPHL is trying to frame IP not only as a registration system, but also as part of commercialization and creative industry growth. That makes this a development worth watching for businesses active in Southeast Asia.

According to an ANTARA report published on February 11, 2026, Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) has pledged to increase the number of registered domestic patents after declaring 2026 the “Year of the Patent.” DJKI said it will prioritize clearing the patent examination backlog, deepen cooperation with the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), involve experts in examinations, provide patent-drafting training, and improve examiner management and capacity so that domestic applications can move forward with better quality and greater confidence.

On April 9, 2026, South Korea’s intellectual property authority—still widely known internationally as KIPO, though its official website now publishes under the Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) branding—announced that its official mascots “Miri” and “IPI” have begun public activities. According to the official release, Miri appears as a shield-like guardian symbolizing early protection and prevention in intellectual property, while IPI takes the form of a lightbulb, reflecting the idea of turning today’s ideas into tomorrow’s assets. Both marks completed trademark and service mark registration in March 2026 and will be used in SNS outreach and policy communication.

At first glance, this looks like a soft branding story. It is more strategic than that. When an IP authority wants to speak beyond examiners, lawyers and rights holders, legal texts and campaign slogans are not enough. It needs a recognizable public interface—something that can keep reappearing across education, social media, events and awareness campaigns. The launch of Miri and IPI suggests that KIPO is trying to make intellectual property easier to approach before the public is asked to understand it in detail.