Eurasian Patent Organization Joins the Hague System for International Industrial Designs
The Eurasian Patent Organization has joined the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. On July 10, 2026, the organization deposited its instrument of accession to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement with the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Geneva Act will enter into force with respect to the EAPO on October 10, 2026.
The EAPO has become the third regional intergovernmental organization to participate in the Hague System. It is also the 78th Contracting Party to the Geneva Act and the 84th member of the Hague Union. Following the accession, the territorial coverage of the Hague System will extend to 101 countries.
From October 10, 2026, applicants filing an international design application through the Hague System will be able to designate the EAPO. A single designation will make it possible to seek protection across the organization’s eight member states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
The Hague System provides a centralized mechanism for obtaining and managing industrial design protection in multiple jurisdictions. Applicants may submit a single international application in one language and pay one set of fees instead of filing separate applications in each selected jurisdiction.
Practical Significance for Applicants
The new regional route may simplify the process of obtaining industrial design protection in the Eurasian region and reduce the administrative burden associated with multiple national filings. The accession may be particularly relevant to businesses operating in sectors where the external appearance of products has significant commercial value, including consumer goods, packaging, equipment, vehicles and digital interfaces.
However, the designation of the EAPO in an international application will not automatically guarantee the grant of protection. International registrations will remain subject to the applicable Eurasian legislation, examination procedures and possible grounds for refusal.
Applicants will therefore need to consider the EAPO requirements concerning the representations of an industrial design, the scope of protection and other procedural matters. WIPO is expected to publish detailed information on the applicable regional legislation and procedures in the EAPO profile within the Hague System.
The accession expands the options available to companies seeking coordinated international protection for industrial designs. Businesses interested in the Eurasian market should review their design portfolios and filing strategies before the new route becomes operational on October 10, 2026.
Supreme Court of Ukraine Refuses to Invalidate Utility Model Patent Where Claimant Failed to Prove an Infringed Interest
The Supreme Court of Ukraine has considered a dispute concerning the invalidation of a utility model patent and clarified the requirements a claimant must satisfy to obtain judicial protection in patent proceedings. The judgment was delivered on June 30, 2026, in case No. 947/27630/23.
The claimant sought the invalidation of an earlier utility model patent and the corresponding amendment of the State Register of Patents of Ukraine for Inventions and Utility Models. He argued that the disputed utility model did not satisfy the novelty requirement and relied on expert opinions, patent examination materials and correspondence from the Ukrainian patent office.
The claimant was also a co-owner of a utility model patent registered in 2019. According to his submissions, the owners of the earlier patent considered the later utility model to reproduce their technical solution. The court of first instance granted the claim and declared the earlier patent invalid. However, the appellate court reversed that judgment because the claimant had failed to demonstrate that the disputed registration infringed any personal right or legally protected interest.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and upheld its decision. It emphasized that the purpose of civil proceedings is to protect rights and interests that have actually been infringed, denied or challenged. A party seeking judicial protection must therefore identify the specific right or legitimate interest affected by the defendant and explain how the disputed patent restricts its legal or economic position.
Requirements for Challenging a Patent
The Court found that a general allegation that a utility model does not meet the applicable patentability requirements is insufficient on its own. The claimant must establish a personal and direct interest in the invalidation of the patent. Co-ownership of a later patent does not automatically prove that the owners of an earlier patent have infringed the claimant’s rights.
The existence of criminal proceedings concerning the alleged unauthorized use of the utility model was also insufficient to substantiate the civil claim. The Supreme Court noted that civil and criminal proceedings apply different standards of proof and examine different legally relevant circumstances. Civil proceedings should not be initiated solely to establish facts that a party intends to rely on when defending itself against criminal prosecution.
The claimant’s references to expert conclusions concerning the alleged lack of novelty did not remedy the failure to prove an infringed right or legally protected interest. As this fundamental condition for judicial protection had not been satisfied, the patent remained valid despite the arguments presented regarding its compliance with the novelty requirement.
The judgment confirms that a party challenging a patent must substantiate two distinct elements: the alleged defects affecting the validity of the patent and the specific adverse effect of that patent on the claimant’s own rights or legitimate interests. Evidence concerning patentability alone may not be sufficient where the claimant has failed to establish a proper legal interest in bringing the action.
More Than 52,000 Counterfeit Products Seized in Kazakhstan
The Department of Justice of Almaty, in cooperation with the city’s Cyber Police, has seized more than 52,000 counterfeit products bearing a trademark confusingly similar to that of an international rights holder. The estimated value of the seized goods exceeds KZT 5.2 million (USD 10980).
The enforcement action was initiated following a complaint from the trademark owner regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark. During the inspection, the authorities discovered a large batch of construction adhesive products marked with a designation likely to mislead consumers as to their commercial origin. As a result, all counterfeit goods were removed from circulation.
Administrative proceedings have been initiated against the alleged infringer, and the case materials have been submitted to the court for further consideration. If the violation is confirmed, the infringer may face administrative penalties under the trademark legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Ongoing Efforts to Combat Counterfeiting
This case highlights the continued efforts of the Kazakh authorities to strengthen intellectual property enforcement and combat the circulation of counterfeit goods. Effective cooperation between rights holders, the Department of Justice, and law enforcement agencies plays a key role in protecting consumers, preserving fair competition, and safeguarding the value of registered trademarks.
Counterfeit products remain a significant challenge across many industries, making timely enforcement actions and proactive trademark protection increasingly important for businesses operating in Kazakhstan and internationally.
