Insights

On 1 April 2026, the Registrar of Trademarks in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq issued a decision extending the term of trademark protection in its jurisdiction from 10 to 15 years. The new term applies to future applications and to pending applications whose certificates had not been issued on the effective date; existing registrations keep their original term. Regional practitioners also report that the Region no longer recognises registrations obtained in Baghdad, so direct filings in Erbil are required. The change stands apart from the 10-year cycle more commonly used internationally and also differs from the 10-year term applied under Iraq’s federal system in Baghdad. Companies holding or seeking trademark rights in different parts of Iraq may therefore need to manage renewal calendars, budgets and portfolio records by reference to the relevant registration authority rather than treating Iraq as a single-term jurisdiction.

The practical effect is broader than simply adding five years of protection. Rights holders should distinguish between federal registrations and registrations administered in the Kurdistan Region, then verify the relevant expiry and renewal dates for each portfolio item. The reported change establishes the new 15-year term, but questions such as how existing registrations transition and whether any special renewal arrangements apply should still be checked against further guidance from the competent authority and the record of each registration.

From 1 September 2026, Uzbekistan increased its Base Calculation Rate (BCR) from UZS 412,000 to UZS 440,000. Under Presidential Decree PF-115 and notices circulated by regional IP practitioners, official fees for trademarks, patents and industrial designs that are calculated by reference to the BCR have risen accordingly across filing, examination, registration and renewal stages. The change therefore affects more than a single fee item: it raises the cost baseline for obtaining and maintaining IP rights in Uzbekistan.

For applicants and rights holders, the immediate task is to refresh budgets and quotations that were prepared before 1 September. Pending matters that have not yet reached a payment point may now require higher official-fee allocations, while renewal and prosecution forecasts should also be recalculated. Because the payable amount for each procedure depends on its prescribed BCR multiple, parties should confirm the latest fee schedule with the competent authority or local counsel before making payment.

OAPI (the African Intellectual Property Organization) issued Official Bulletin No. 05 BR/2026 on 1 September 2026, while practitioners are closely tracking a separate but potentially far more consequential fee-support proposal. Under the terms currently being discussed, eligible innovation-focused applicants could see official patent registration fees fall from roughly CFA 1,000,000 to CFA 22,500. OAPI has also indicated that it would cover 80% of maintenance fees for the first five years after grant. If implemented on those terms, the measure would go well beyond an ordinary fee adjustment and could materially change filing budgets and early-stage portfolio costs across the OAPI system.

The practical question is now less about the headline reduction than about eligibility, procedure and scope. Final implementing rules are still awaiting adoption by the Council of Ministers, so applicants should not yet treat the lower figures as settled filing costs. Those considering direct OAPI filings or entry into the OAPI regional phase via the PCT should watch the qualification criteria, covered fee items and effective date closely. Once the details are confirmed, the programme could become one of OAPI’s most significant patent-cost incentives in recent years.

The U.S. Copyright Office has moved its first broad fee adjustment since 2020 into the congressional review stage. On July 14, 2026, the Office submitted its final proposed fee schedule and analysis to Congress. Under 17 U.S.C. § 708(b), Congress has 120 days to enact a law disapproving the schedule; absent that, the Office may implement the new rates after the review period, with implementation targeted for fall 2026. The proposed standard electronic registration fee would rise from $65 to $85, while the Single Application fee would move from $45 to $55. Group Registration of Works on an Album would also become more expensive, with musical works rising to $85 and sound recordings, together with related album photographs, artwork and liner notes, rising to $130.

The sharpest increases are in recordation and expedited services. The base fee for electronic recordation of a copyright document would increase from $95 to $215, with the fee for each additional transfer also moving to $215. Special Handling for a registration claim would rise from $800 to $1,100, while expedited recordation would increase from $550 to $1,100. The Office has framed the changes as part of a broader effort to improve cost recovery and has already reduced some figures from earlier proposals after public comments. For companies that regularly file multiple registrations, record ownership transfers or rely on expedited certificates before enforcement steps, the practical issue is timing rather than price alone: fourth-quarter matters should be reviewed now to see whether mature filings can be completed before the new schedule takes effect and whether grouping or expedited treatment is still economically justified.

On August 27, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published two Federal Register notices concerning information collections tied to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appeals and trademark application prosecution. For OMB Control No. 0651-0063, “PTAB Appeals,” the USPTO revised its annual burden estimates to account for participation in the Standards Participation and Representation Kudos (SPARK) Pilot Program, adding 50 respondents, 50 responses, and 50 burden hours. The change is best read as an update to information-collection and administrative burden estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act, rather than as a new substantive rule governing PTAB appeals.

A separate notice for OMB Control No. 0651-0054 addresses substantive submissions made during trademark prosecution and again sets out the existing framework for intent-to-use applicants seeking extensions before filing a Statement of Use: each extension is for six months, with no more than five extension requests over a 30-month period. The practical point is procedural rather than doctrinal. Applicants should focus on SPARK eligibility and on accurate deadline management for trademark use filings, while avoiding the assumption that the August 27 notices created new examination standards.

On 26 August 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision in Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., rejecting the Board’s construction of “request to provision” and “activate.” The PTAB had read those terms broadly enough to encompass both adding a new service and managing an existing subscription. The Federal Circuit instead relied on the claims as a whole and the specification’s repeated, consistent usage, which tied “activate” to the addition of a new service and distinguished activation from later management or access. The court remanded on those constructions while leaving the Board’s treatment of another term, “utilized by,” intact. The disposition is expressly nonprecedential, so it should not be presented as a new binding rule for all IPRs.

The practical point is narrower but still important. IPR proceedings filed on or after 13 November 2018 have already used the federal-court Phillips claim-construction standard rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation approach. Zilkr therefore matters less as a change in the governing standard than as a reminder about how intrinsic evidence can limit seemingly broad language. Repeated and consistent use across the specification may carry substantial weight even without a dictionary-style definition or an express disclaimer. Patent owners should map that internal consistency carefully when defending claim scope in IPR, while petitioners face greater risk when a broad reading depends on abstract ordinary meaning but sits uneasily with the patent’s own usage.