Emerging IP - December 2025

EMERGING IP

December 2025

LATEST UPDATES

Kazakhstan Adopts its First AI Law

On 29 October 2025, Kazakhstan’s Parliament adopted the country’s first Artificial Intelligence (AI) Law, which comes into effect on 18 January 2026. This landmark legislation aims to balance technological innovation with ethical standards and intellectual property rights.

Kazakhstan’s copyright framework is built on both national legislation and international agreements, including the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Domestically, the Civil Code and the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (1996, as amended) define the rules of authorship, ownership, and protection.

Kazakhstan's newly adopted AI Law does not directly amend the Copyright Law but complements it by introducing provisions for key AI-related areas where the copyright law was silent.

Key AI Law features

• Definitions: The law provides precise definitions of terms such as artificial intelligence, AI system, AI model, machine‑readable format, and related concepts.
• Legal framework: The law establishes a comprehensive legal and organisational foundation for AI governance, emphasising transparency, safety and accountability in AI development and deployment.
• Developer duties: Owners and holders of AI systems must manage risks across the lifecycle, ensure safety and reliability, protect against unauthorised access, maintain documentation, and support users. Liability for harm caused by AI systems is governed under the Civil Code of Kazakhstan.
• Trusted systems: Government bodies may establish voluntary “trust lists” for high‑risk AI systems to promote transparency, best practices, and public confidence. Inclusion in these lists requires an audit conducted by the system’s owner or holder, but participation is optional rather than mandatory.
• Risk‑based regulation: AI systems are classified into different risk categories, including minimal, medium, or high risk based on their potential impact on safety and society. High‑risk systems face stricter oversight, while harmful applications are prohibited.
• Prohibited uses: The law bans manipulative or subconscious techniques, exploitation of vulnerable groups, social scoring (except where legally permitted), unlawful biometric data processing, and emotion recognition without consent, ensuring protection of fundamental rights and dignity.

Key copyright provisions (Article 23 of AI Law)

• Authorship: Copyright protection is reserved for works of human authorship. Works created entirely by AI systems, without human contribution, are excluded from protection.
• Prompts: Textual prompts that demonstrate human intellectual or creative effort may be recognised as copyrightable works. This raises questions about the boundary between human authorship and autonomous machine generation.
• Use of works for AI training: The use of copyrighted works for training AI models is treated as a distinct category of use, separate from traditional exploitation rights. Under the law, authors or rights holders may expressly prohibit such use in a machine-readable format—a novel mechanism that effectively resembles the creation of a new form of exclusive right.
• Legal framework: This new exclusive right is not yet recognised in the Civil Code or Copyright Law, but the AI Law signals movement in that direction.
• Mandatory labeling: The AI Law introduces mandatory labeling for AI-generated services, products, or content (images, video, audio, text) in both machine-readable and visual forms to ensure transparency and prevent misuse.

Since the level of human creativity required to establish authorship has not yet been defined, and practical mechanisms for enforcing prohibitions expressed in a machine‑readable form are still lacking, achieving a balance between innovation and the protection of authors’ rights will demand continued collaboration among lawmakers, courts, and industry stakeholders.

By: Aliya Madiyarova

Kazakhstan Amends Several Key IP Acts

On 24 November 2025, Kazakhstan’s President signed Law No. 233-VIII, effective 25 January 2026, which amends several key IP acts, including the Civil Code, the Law on Trade Marks, Service Marks, Geographical Indications and Appellations of Origin of 26 July 1999, the Patent Law of 16 July 1999 and the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of 10 June 1996.

The key changes introduced by the new law include the following:

• Accelerated preliminary examination option: Must be completed within 10 working days from the trade mark application filing date, whereas the standard preliminary examination typically takes about one month.
• Accelerated substantive examination option: Must be completed within three months from the filing date, whereas the standard substantive examination typically lasts about seven months under the current version of the Trade Mark Law and its implementing regulations.
• Extended opposition period: Under the amended Art. 11-2(1) of the Trade Mark Law, the opposition period for published trade mark applications has been extended from one month to two months. This provides brand owners and their representatives more time for monitoring, reviewing, and preparing legal arguments to protect their rights.
• Suspension of the examination upon filing a lawsuit: Under Art. 13(7) of the Trade Mark Law, suspension of trade mark application examination is now permitted not only when an opposition has been filed with the Kazakh Board of Appeals, but also when a lawsuit has been initiated in court. This amendment aligns administrative and judicial processes and prevents conflicting decisions during the ongoing litigation.
• Postponement of Board of Appeals hearings: Amendments to Art. 41-2(4)(2) of the Trade Mark Law broaden the right to request adjournment of opposition hearings. Previously limited to the opponent, this right has now been extended to any party to the dispute, including the trade mark applicant.
• Updated definition of protected rights under the Civil Code: Amendments to Art. 972(1) introduce modern terminology and expand the list of protectable IP rights. The new wording includes “works of decorative and applied art” and “computer programs (software)”. Similar amendments to Art. 7(1) of the Copyright Law modernise the definition of copyrightable works to accommodate broader protection for contemporary creative works.

Kazakhstan’s new IP legislation modernises the system by expanding protection for contemporary creative works and by streamlining IP procedures. It creates both opportunities and obligations—trade mark owners must adapt to new timelines, while authors, software developers, and designers may benefit from clearer recognition of their rights.

By: Aliya Madiyarova

Montenegro Introduces Patent Law Amendments, Signs Search Cooperation Agreement with EPO

On 19 March 2025, Montenegro adopted several patent law amendments to improve the procedure for extending the national patent validity. Effective 27 March 2025, the amendments require patent holders to submit evidence of patentability before the end of the ninth year of validity in order to ensure continued protection beyond the tenth year. Since patents in Montenegro are granted on the basis of formal examination only, holders must provide proof of patentability to maintain their rights.

Under the amended regime, proof of patentability may be provided as part of a search report with a written opinion prepared by intergovernmental or foreign offices under agreements with the Montenegrin IPO. This is now formally recognised as sufficient evidence to maintain patent protection beyond the tenth year.

In April 2025, Montenegro and the European Patent Office (EPO) signed a Working Agreement on Search Cooperation, effective 1 December 2025. The agreement allows the Montenegrin IPO to request the EPO to execute search reports and written opinions on the patentability of national patent applications and patents, providing substantive evidence to support the continued validity of patents beyond the tenth year.

Montenegro is finalising a similar agreement with Croatia. Since Croatian is an official language in Montenegro, search reports from the Croatian IPO can be used without translations. This will eliminate translation costs for patent applications into English and search reports into Montenegrin, easing the financial burdens.

As of 1 August 2025, Montenegro's accession to the London Agreement simplified translation requirements, but applicants seeking validation of European patents in Montenegro must provide Montenegrin translations of claims and drawings, along with the EPO’s B1 document in English. This requirement strengthens procedural clarity and aligns national practice with European standards.

By: Mladen Čolović

Romania Launches Electronic Trade Mark Certificates

The Romanian Patent and Trade Mark Office (PTO) issued a decision on 17 December 2025 to begin issuing trade mark registration and renewal certificates electronically (digitally signed) as of January 2026 for all applications and requests where an e-mail address is the provided contact method.

Implementing the provisions of Art. 571(5) of Government Decision 1197/2022 amending Government Decision 1134/2010 on the Trade Mark Regulation, the recent decision provides that if an applicant, holder, interested person, or agent indicates electronic contact details, the PTO will prioritise electronic communication for notifications and other correspondence. 

The Romanian PTO has been issuing renewal decisions electronically since mid-2025, while the PTO continued to issue renewal certificates on paper, often with considerable delays. The new decision is expected to streamline the process by enabling both renewal decisions and certificates to be issued electronically – simultaneously or with shorter time lags. Unless receipt is confirmed, electronic decisions and certificates are considered received on the first working day after being emailed to the owner or representative.

By: Roxana Sarghi

Serbia: New Seed Law Enters into Force

Serbia’s new Law on Seed and Propagating Material of Agricultural and Ornamental Plants, in force since 31 October 2025, harmonizes local regulations with EU standards to ensure higher quality and safer seeds. It consolidates and repeals previous laws including the Law on Seed, Law on Seed and Propagating Material, and Law on Propagating Material of Fruit Trees, Grapevines, and Hops.

Key provisions of the law include:

• Scope of regulation: The law governs production, processing, packaging, labelling, marketing, post‑control testing, and import of seed and propagating material of agricultural and ornamental plants.
• Unified E-Register: The law establishes a central electronic register maintained by the Serbian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management. Registration is mandatory for most professional producers, processors, traders, and importers, with exemptions for certain retail operators and small-scale producers.
• Seed categories: The law aligns seed categories with EU practice, defining pre‑basic, basic, certified (C1 and C2), standard, and commercial seed, while leaving ornamental plant seed uncategorised.
• Certification rules: The law sets detailed rules for certification, including verification of varietal identity and quality by competent authorities and accredited laboratories. Unregistered varieties can be produced for foreign customers if a contract is signed, prior approval obtained from the Ministry, and the entire quantity produced exported.
• Local market and small producers: The law introduces new terms - “local market” refers to the municipality of production and adjacent areas, while “small producer” is an entrepreneur who sells propagating material directly to final consumers in a local market.
• Exemptions: Certain provisions do not apply to small producers, creating a more lenient regime for local market activities. The law also excludes seed and propagating material used for research, experimentation, variety registration, gene banks, export, and traditional old varieties grown in specific areas.
• Oversight system: The law introduces supervision across all stages of seed and propagating material production and marketing, including inspections of registered entities. It also mandates compliance with specific quality, packaging, and labelling rules. It prescribes substantial fines and possible bans for serious infringements, while granting existing registrants a one‑year grace period to align their status with the new regulations by filing a continuation declaration free of charge.

A transitional period of three years from the date of entry into force of the law is provided in order to give all affected entities enough time to fully comply with new requirements.

By: Nada Milović

Ukrainian Authorities Seize Counterfeit Sportswear

Ukrainian authorities in the Odesa region have recently exposed a network selling counterfeit sportswear infringing the trade marks of well-known global brands.

During the raids, police officials seized more than 23,000 units of counterfeit clothing and footwear, as well as computer equipment and accounting records. The total value of the seized items is estimated at 667,000 EUR.

The leader of the counterfeit operation managed a network of stores across the Odesa, Mykolaiv and Vinnytsia regions, sourcing fake goods from Ukrainian wholesale markets and abroad. The merchandise was sold both online and in physical shops with the help of six recruited assistants.

The investigation continues under Part 3, Article 229 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal use of trade marks), under the supervision of the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office.

By: Maya Smirnova

Qatar Joins the Nice Agreement 

On 10 November 2025, Qatar deposited its instrument of accession to the Nice Agreement, the international treaty that standardises the classification of goods and services for trade mark registration. The Agreement will enter into force for Qatar on 10 February 2026, coinciding with the implementation of the Nice Classification, 13th Edition (2026), effective 1 January 2026.

This step aligns Qatar’s trade mark system with the globally recognised Nice Classification, simplifying multi‑jurisdictional filings and reinforcing its integration into the international intellectual property framework.

By: Elias Nassif

CWB 2025 IP CASE HIGHLIGHTS

Seven Interesting Cases CWB Handled in 2025
 

Algeria – Defending Global Tech Giant’s Important House Mark

We assisted our client, a global tech giant, with launching and settling merits cancellation proceedings in Algeria. We prepared and filed extensive cancellation arguments and evidence, while first requesting the court to facilitate conciliation, as is standard in Algeria. We simultaneously explored potential settlement outside of the judicial process in an attempt to swiftly resolve the case.

Through extensive negotiation, we reached a settlement under which the registered proprietor voluntarily cancelled the mark at issue. To facilitate this outcome, we assisted the proprietor with filing a new application based on a carefully crafted specification acceptable to our client, managed the trade mark assignment and recordal, which was necessary before cancellation could take place, and safeguarded our client’s rights against future use or registrations by securing a binding unilateral undertaking in our client’s favour. We achieved a swift resolution and avoided what could have been a lengthy court proceeding lasting several months or even years.

Bulgaria – NIKKI BEACH Trade Mark Successfully Defended Before EUIPO

CWB Bulgaria represented a hospitality & entertainment firm, Penrod Management International LLC, in a dispute against an infringer who established a NIKKI BEACH lookalike club in Bulgaria. The infringer brought a non-use cancellation action against the client’s NIKKI BEACH EU trade mark, which we successfully defended before the EUIPO. Following two infringement actions, the courts issued a final injunction against the infringers, and we successfully warded off appeals before the Sofia Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria.

CWB Bulgaria is also coordinating NIKKI BEACH opposition and infringement cases in Turkey, Montenegro and Azerbaijan.

Jordan – Appeal Against Refusal of Class 5 Word Mark

We represented a global leader in generic and biosimilar medicines following Jordan IPO’s refusal of the client’s trade mark application (word mark, class 5) on relative grounds due to similarity with an existing registration for oncology medicines.

Following an unsuccessful settlement attempt, we filed an appeal highlighting the differences between the marks and products, their distinct visual and phonetic structures, their different therapeutic uses (immunosuppressants vs. cancer treatments), and the fact that both products are handled exclusively by qualified healthcare professionals. We relied on Jordanian precedent, Supreme Court of Justice decision 327/2006, confirming that the likelihood of confusion for pharmaceutical trade marks must be assessed from the perspective of doctors and pharmacists. The appeal is currently pending.

The case is strategically important as the mark is a back-up brand for a key regional project. The case illustrates common challenges in pharmaceutical branding, including invented-name similarity and the treatment of distinct therapeutic indications within class 5. Our approach combines scientific product differentiation with established Jordanian case law to counter overly broad relative grounds refusals. The appeal strengthens our client’s position in Jordan and may serve as a helpful reference for future pharmaceutical marks facing similar objections across the MENA region.

Serbia - Defence Against a Non‑Use Cancellation Action

CWB Serbia successfully defended a global tech & media giant against a non‑use cancellation action filed in Serbia by a competitor, while also securing favourable outcomes for related international filings. The competitor sought cancellation of our client’s registered trade mark in Serbia (Classes 9, 38, 41, and 42) and simultaneously attempted to overcome provisional refusals of its own similar marks by requesting our client’s consent. The case involved strategic negotiation under short deadlines and a detailed coordination with the competitor’s local and our client’s global legal team.

CWB swiftly resolved the matter in June 2025 by persuading the opponent to withdraw its conflicting international registration in Serbia. CWB obtained the Letter of Consent from our client under Serbian formalities allowing the opponent’s other international registration to proceed. The successful outcome was achieved within days of the final deadline, showcasing CWB’s legal agility, deep local insight, and ability to coordinate with global teams under pressure.

South Africa – Trade Mark Dispute Between Two Household Goods Retailers

CWB South Africa was recently engaged in a trade mark dispute between two household goods retailers active in China and Korea. The defendant, having obtained knowledge of our client’s expansion plans, preemptively filed for our client’s trade mark in multiple jurisdictions, including South Africa. As our client had not used the mark in South Africa, the CWB representative based the opposition on bad faith—an inherently difficult argument in the absence of local reputation.

The opposition case proceeded from the Trade Mark Registry to the High Court and shortly after, the defendant’s shops in South Africa—operating under their own trade mark, not the plaintiff’s—began closing. Amid concerns over the defendant’s credibility and financial standing, an order for security for costs was granted in our client’s favour but not complied with by the defendant, leading to the removal of the defendant’s application from the register, which cleared the way for our client’s trade mark registration to proceed.

Learn more about this case here.

South Africa – Infringement of Registered Designs

In August 2025, CWB South Africa successfully represented a solar panel manufacturer Balster Jan Nienhuis before the Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa against Africo Solar, importer and wholesaler of solar products, who infringed the applicant’s three registered industrial designs for rooftop solar panel mounting brackets. Africo Solar admitted to distributing identical brackets but argued that this act did not automatically constitute infringement because the brackets had other potential uses outside the protected Class 13 (solar panel mounting systems), such as for shelving, geyser, or lighting fixture mounting.

The court held that design protection is determined by the article’s visual features and its predominant purpose, noting that multiple facts supported the inference that Africo Solar sold its brackets predominantly for solar panel mounting. The court ordered the respondent to cease infringing the applicant’s registered designs, hand over all infringing articles to the rights owner for destruction and pay the applicant’s legal costs on a punitive scale.

Learn more about this case here.

UAE – Landmark Opposition Against a Bad Faith Filing

CWB successfully represented one of the world’s largest automotive companies in a landmark opposition in the UAE against a bad faith filing covering (among other things) oils, lubricants, and greases in Class 4, where our client otherwise held no prior registrations in Class 4 in the UAE. By presenting a compelling evidentiary record and persuasive legal arguments, in an otherwise short timeline, we secured a final decision from the Opposition Committee upholding the opposition, recognising an overlap between Class 12 and Class 4 goods (not otherwise arguably clearly established in jurisprudence) and explicitly affirming the client’s trade mark’s well-known status, thereby extending its protection beyond registered classes and reinforcing the expansive scope of rights afforded to well-known marks under applicable UAE Law.

The decision is highly significant as it reinforces practical and forward-looking opposition assessments. By expressly recognising an overlap between Class 12 and Class 4 goods, the Committee moved beyond identical-class comparisons in oppositions, in practice, and embraced a substantive analysis aligned with the applicable laws. Equally impactful was the formal recognition of the client’s trade mark as well-known, establishing this status on record and suggesting (on our assessment) readiness to extend its protection to unregistered classes.

TOP 10 MOST READ NEWS STORIES OF 2025

Tanzania Introduces Mandatory Trade Mark Recordals for Imports

South Africa: Upcoming Patents Bill and Design Amendment Bill to Bring Significant Changes

Egypt Updates Official Fees for Patents, Plant Varieties, and Copyrights

Lebanon Simplifies IP Ownership Transfer Recordations

Uzbekistan Adopts New IP Law Amending Certain Legislative Acts

Bosnia Updates IP Legislation

New Trade Mark and Patent Laws Enter into Force in Albania

UAE Launches GI System

Kuwait Sets Precedent with Filmed Destruction of Counterfeit Character Stationery

Qatar Launches Industrial Design Registration Process

2025 COMPANY HIGHLIGHTS

CWB Hosts Successful Webinar on Trade Marks & Patents in the MENA Region

On 10 December 2025, eight IP professionals from our offices in the MENA region held a successful webinar with over 60 participants. Thank you to everyone who joined live – we appreciate your support and engagement and hope you found the discussion informative.

If you could not make the live time, you can now access the recording and slide deck – tune in to see what IP rights owners need to know and act on in this dynamic and constantly evolving part of the world!

Our speakers and topics are listed below:

Theuns van de Merwe – Moderator
Lina Bazzi – UAE & KSA: Trade Mark Prosecution
Marianne Raphael – UAE & KSA: Patent Prosecution

Kim Mbombo Kazadi – UAE: Trade Mark Oppositions
Gerald Bourne – KSA: Trade Mark Oppositions
Firas Jayussi – UAE & KSA: Civil Trade Mark Enforcement
Elias Nassif – Syria: Overview and Latest Developments
Vivianna Paraskevi – Yemen: Overview and Latest Developments

By: Jelena Janković

CWB Wins ‘UAE Trade Mark Firm of the Year’ Award

15 CWB People on INTA Committees for 2026-2027