HIGHLIGHTS
Gaza Trade Mark Office Extends Renewal Deadline
Ukraine’s New Draft Trade Mark Law: A Shift Toward the EU Model
Ukraine has taken another significant step towards harmonising its intellectual property legislation with European Union standards by introducing a new draft trade mark law. Rather than merely updating the existing legislation, the draft proposes a comprehensive reform of the trade mark registration system, implementing Ukraine’s obligations under the EU – Ukraine Association Agreement, in line with Directive (EU) 2015/2436 and the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union Trade Mark.
A key change proposed in the draft law is the complete restructuring of the trade mark examination and post-registration dispute resolution system. If adopted, the reform would fundamentally change how trade marks are examined, registered, and challenged in Ukraine.
A faster examination process
Unlike the current system, where examination of both absolute and relative grounds may significantly delay registration, the draft introduces a streamlined procedure focused primarily on formal requirements and absolute grounds for refusal, reducing the time required to obtain trade mark protection.
According to the explanatory materials presented by the Ukrainian IP Office (IPO) during recent discussions on the new draft law, the proposed examination timeline would be approximately up to one month for the formal examination, and up to two additional months for examination on absolute grounds.
Accordingly, straightforward applications could proceed to registration within approximately three months, representing a substantial reduction compared with the current registration timeframe.
The draft law also allows partial registration, meaning that where absolute grounds affect only part of the specification, protection may still be granted for the remaining goods and services instead of refusing the application in its entirety.
Relative grounds move from the examination stage to the opposition stage
The reform fundamentally changes the role of the IPO in assessing conflicts with earlier rights. Under the current legislation, the IPO examines trade mark applications on both absolute and relative grounds, conducting ex officio searches for earlier conflicting trade marks.
The draft largely abandons this approach. Instead, the IPO will now primarily examine applications against absolute grounds for refusal, while conflicts with earlier trade marks will be resolved through the opposition proceedings initiated by the owners of earlier rights. This brings Ukraine considerably closer to the EUIPO model, where owners of earlier rights are expected to actively enforce their prior rights.
Early publication and automatic notifications
To compensate for the reduced role of ex officio examination, the draft law introduces several new conflict-detection mechanisms. It provides that, once the application satisfies the minimum filing requirements during formal examination, it will be entered into the Trade Mark Database. According to the implementation model presented by the Ukrainian IPO, application data will be published within three working days of the application receipt, even before confirmation of the filing fee payment, thereby enabling earlier monitoring by prior rights owners.
In addition, the IPO will automatically send electronic notifications to owners of earlier Ukrainian trade mark registrations where newly filed applications appear identical or similar according to an automated similarity assessment. Importantly, these notifications are purely informational and do not constitute an official assessment of likelihood of confusion, create no legal presumptions or suspend any procedural deadlines.
The right to file an opposition is not limited to recipients of such notifications, as any interested party entitled to rely on earlier rights may initiate opposition proceedings within the prescribed statutory period.
The draft law also allows interested parties to request an official trade mark search report covering national applications and registrations, international registrations designating Ukraine and, following Ukraine's accession to the EU, European Union trade marks.
Introduction of a genuine opposition system
One of the most important novelties is the introduction of a comprehensive administrative opposition procedure. Rather than preventing registration during substantive examination, owners of earlier rights will be able to challenge registrations within three months from publication of the registration by filing an opposition based on relative grounds.
Unlike the current system, where the registered trade mark can be challenged only before the court, these disputes will be resolved administratively before the IPO, avoiding immediate court proceedings. The draft law also introduces separate administrative procedures for declarations of invalidity and revocation, including cancellation for non-use, genericide, and deceptive use.
To prevent bad-faith or abusive disputes, the draft law introduces a cost-allocation mechanism. The losing party in administrative proceedings, including oppositions, revocations, and invalidations, will be required to reimburse the winning party for official fees and reasonable legal fees.
The reform therefore creates a multi-layered administrative enforcement system broadly comparable to the system administered by the EUIPO.
Registration first, certainty later
An important practical consequence of the new model is that a trade mark registration will no longer be immune to post-grant challenges. During the three-month opposition period, the registration remains vulnerable to cancellation based on earlier rights, which the IPO describes as a period of legal uncertainty. Nevertheless, this still represents a significant improvement over the current system, where uncertainty regarding relative grounds may continue throughout the considerably longer examination process, often lasting well over a year.
Under the draft law, a registration cannot be relied upon for certain purposes until the opposition period expires or any filed opposition proceedings are fully concluded. Restricted actions include:
- Obtaining a second-level .UA domain name;
- Recording the trade mark with the Customs IP Register; or
- Obtaining a final court judgment in trade mark infringement proceedings.
Greater emphasis on actual use
The draft law further aligns Ukrainian practice with the EU by strengthening the role of genuine trade mark use and codifying the doctrines of acquiescence and non-use as important defences available to proprietors of later trade marks. In particular, proprietors of earlier marks may be required to demonstrate genuine use of their registrations before relying on them in opposition or invalidity proceedings, while a proprietor who has knowingly tolerated the use of a later trade mark for five consecutive years may, in principle, lose the right to seek its invalidation.
While commenting on the draft law, the IPO has stated that the five-year period relevant for assessing genuine use will commence only after the expiry of the opposition period or, where an opposition has been filed, once the decision on the merits of opposition becomes final.
Non-traditional trade marks
The draft law expressly recognises numerous non-traditional trade marks, including:
- Sound marks;
- Position marks;
- Pattern marks;
- Motion marks;
- Hologram marks;
- Multimedia marks; and
- Colour marks and combinations of colours without contours.
A comprehensive legal framework for certification and collective trade marks is also introduced in the draft. Certification marks are intended to distinguish goods or services that have been certified by the proprietor as to their material, method of manufacture, quality or other characteristics. Unlike ordinary trade mark owners, the proprietor of a certification mark must not carry on business involving the certified goods or services, but instead act as an independent certifying body. Certification marks will also be governed by publicly available regulations specifying the conditions of use, certification criteria and supervision mechanisms.
A collective mark may be used by members of the association in accordance with the governing rules of use, allowing them to identify their goods or services as originating from members of the same organisation while preserving individual commercial identities. Like certification marks, collective marks are subject to dedicated rules on registration, use, amendment of regulations and revocation.
Digitalisation and modernisation of proceedings
Beyond substantive changes, the draft law introduces a fully digital administrative framework. Applications and administrative proceedings will primarily be conducted electronically. This digital framework includes the use of electronic case files, the electronic service of documents, and the automated generation of registry extracts and trade mark certificates. The IPO also plans to establish an open trade mark database with automated notification services and enhanced interoperability with other public registers.
Looking ahead
The proposed legislation represents far more than a technical revision of Ukraine's trade mark law. It fundamentally changes the philosophy of trade mark registration by replacing a predominantly examination-based system with a modern European model built around faster registration, early publication, digital monitoring and post-publication opposition procedures.
For trade mark owners, the reform will place greater emphasis on proactive portfolio management. Trade mark watching, appointing local representatives, preserving evidence of genuine use, and reacting promptly during the three-month opposition period, will become increasingly important. At the same time, applicants should benefit from significantly faster registration, earlier commercial exploitation of their brands and a more predictable examination process.
The proposed law remains at the public consultation stage and does not yet constitute an official legislative bill introduced before the Ukrainian Parliament. The draft may be amended following consultations with stakeholders, and neither its final text upon submission nor the timeline for parliamentary debate has been finalised.
We will closely follow further developments and keep our clients informed of any significant changes throughout the legislative process.
By: Oleh Karpenko
REGIONAL UPDATES
Eastern Europe
Albania Accedes to Singapore and Nairobi Treaties
On 1 July 2026, Albania acceded to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trade Marks and the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol by depositing its instruments of accession with WIPO. The Nairobi Treaty entered into force in Albania on 1 August 2026, while the Singapore Treaty will enter into force on 1 October 2026.
The Singapore Treaty aims to modernise and simplify trade mark registration and management procedures, providing a more efficient, transparent, and user-friendly framework for trade mark protection, while the Nairobi Treaty guarantees the protection of the Olympic symbol against unauthorised commercial use and registration.
Accession to these treaties strengthens Albania’s industrial property system by further aligning its legislation and administrative practices with international standards for trade mark protection.
By: Melina Nika
EAPO Joins the Hague System
On 10 July 2026, the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) deposited its instrument of accession to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, with the treaty entering into force for EAPO on 10 October 2026.
This accession enables rights holders to secure industrial design protection across eight EAPO member states through a single centralized application administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
The Eurasian Patent Organization is the regional intergovernmental organization responsible for administering the Eurasian patent system. It provides centralized procedures for obtaining and managing intellectual property rights across its member states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.
Read the full announcement at WIPO.
By: Jelena Janković
Georgia Accedes to Riyadh Design Law Treaty
Georgia acceded to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty following the deposit of its instrument of accession with WIPO on 8 July 2026. The accession is expected to simplify international design protection for Georgian designers, innovators, and businesses, while further aligning the country's IP framework with global standards and strengthening cross-border industrial design protection.
Prior to accession, Georgia updated its national design legislation to align with treaty requirements, introducing provisions related to the restoration of priority rights, reinstatement of design rights in certain circumstances, and procedural safeguards for missed deadlines.
The treaty, adopted by WIPO on 22 November 2024, harmonises procedural rules for industrial design protection, including filing requirements, design representations, multiple-design applications, deferred publication, renewals, ownership changes and licences, while reducing notarisation, legalisation and document certification requirements. While it does not create an international registration system or replace the Hague System, it sets common standards for national and regional design registration procedures.
The treaty will enter into force three months after 15 eligible states or intergovernmental organisations ratify or accede to it. As of August 2026, it is not yet in force, with ratification or accession instruments deposited by Albania, El Salvador, Georgia and Saudi Arabia, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Uzbekistan, have signed the treaty but are not yet bound by its provisions.
By: Igor Alfiorov
Serbia Accedes to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement
On 21 July 2026, Serbia deposited its instrument of accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications (“Geneva Act”) with the Director General of WIPO. The Geneva Act will enter into force with respect to Serbia on 21 October 2026.
Serbia is already a party to the Stockholm Act of the Lisbon Agreement, which provides for the international registration of appellations of origin. Its accession to the Geneva Act extends Serbia’s participation in the Lisbon System to encompass geographical indications as well.
Once the Geneva Act enters into force for Serbia, applications for the international registration of Serbian appellations of origin and geographical indications that are already protected domestically may be filed with WIPO to facilitate protection in multiple jurisdictions. These may include designations for non-agricultural products, such as ZLAKUSA pottery; agricultural and food products, such as FRUŠKOGORSKI LIPOV MED and LESKOVAČKI DOMAĆI AJVAR; and wines and spirits, such as BERMET.
By: Dragana Vulović
Middle East
Kurdistan Region of Iraq: Trade Mark Protection Period Extended to 15 Years
The Trade Mark Office in Kurdistan, Iraq, has officially transitioned from a 10-year to a 15-year trade mark protection period, in accordance with the amended Trade Marks and Commercial Data Law No. 21 of 1957.
The extended term applies to new registrations, pending applications upon registration, and renewals. Existing registrations issued under the former 10-year practice will remain valid until their stated expiry date and will benefit from the 15-year protection period upon the next renewal term.
This development marks a significant change in trade mark practice across the Kurdistan Region and is a critical consideration for brand owners reviewing their upcoming registration and renewal timelines.
By: Hussein Haidar
Bahrain Accedes to Locarno Agreement
Bahrain has joined the Locarno Agreement, following the deposit of its instrument of accession with WIPO on 29 July 2026.
The Locarno Agreement establishes a unified classification system for industrial designs across WIPO member states.
The treaty will enter into force for Bahrain on 29 October 2026.
By: Marianne Raphael
Saudi Arabia Ratifies Riyadh Design Law Treaty
Saudi Arabia has ratified the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT) by depositing its instrument of ratification with WIPO on 8 July 2026, following its initial signing on 22 November 2024.
Adopted in Riyadh in 2024, the Treaty aims to simplify and harmonise administrative procedures for the protection of industrial designs, making the registration and management of industrial designs more efficient, predictable, and accessible.
While the Treaty does not establish a unitary international industrial design right, each Contracting Party continues to protect industrial designs under its own national system while applying the harmonised procedural standards established by the Treaty.
As of 8 July 2026, four eligible parties have formally joined the Treaty: Albania, El Salvador, and Saudi Arabia through ratification, and Georgia through accession. The Treaty will enter into force once 15 eligible parties have ratified or acceded to it. So far, the required threshold has not been reached.
Saudi Arabia’s ratification represents an important step in strengthening the international framework for industrial design protection and reflects the country’s continued commitment to developing its intellectual property system and supporting innovation.
By: Marianne Raphael
Saudi Arabia Accedes to Madrid Protocol
Qatar Launches Digital Portal for Industrial Designs and Models
The Intellectual Property Rights Protection Department at Qatar's Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MOCI) has officially launched a suite of new electronic services for industrial designs and models.
The newly introduced services include applications for registration, preliminary examination requests, appeals against registration decisions, and oppositions to the acceptance of industrial designs or models for registration.
By: Marianne Raphael
ARTICLES
How Parallel Proceedings Secured a Major FMCG Brand Victory in Kazakhstan
CWB Kazakhstan office was recently involved in a trade mark dispute between two competitors selling fast-moving consumer goods. In June 2026, the Kazakhstan Board of Appeal invalidated a trade mark registration in a decision that highlights the distinction between relative and absolute grounds for invalidation.
The decision is noteworthy because, although the Board rejected the brand owner’s claim that the competing marks were confusingly similar under Article 7 of the Trade Mark Law, it nevertheless invalidated the later registration based on the way the mark was used in the marketplace.
The brand owner owned an earlier family of trade marks, while the registrant held a registration for a later word mark used for overlapping goods. The brand owner argued that the later mark could mislead consumers into believing that the products originated from the same source or were commercially connected.
To remove the competing product from the market, the brand owner first had to invalidate the later trade mark registration, which made a traditional enforcement strategy difficult.
Under Kazakhstan law, a trade mark may be invalidated on relative grounds under Article 7 or absolute grounds under Article 6. While Article 7 addresses conflicts with earlier rights and typically requires an assessment of visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity between the signs, Article 6 prohibits, among other things, designations capable of misleading consumers regarding the manufacturer or commercial origin of goods.
Considering the Article 7 claim, the Board found that, although the marks shared a common initial element, they differed phonetically, visually, and conceptually. As the similarity of goods could not compensate for the lack of sufficient similarity between the signs, the claim was rejected.
To strengthen its Article 6 arguments, the brand owner initiated parallel proceedings before Kazakhstan’s antimonopoly authority, alleging unfair competition through the imitation of product packaging and overall product presentation.
Since enforcement practice concerning packaging imitation remains relatively limited in Kazakhstan, building the case required a substantial evidentiary record, including packaging materials, evidence of market presence, marketing materials, and an independent expert opinion addressing the similarities between the competing product presentations.
Following its investigation, the antimonopoly authority concluded that the competing product’s presentation constituted unfair competition through packaging imitation, which subsequently formed part of the evidentiary record supporting the brand owner’s Article 6 arguments before the Board of Appeal.
Importantly, while unfair competition itself is not a ground for invalidating a trade mark, the Board used the packaging imitation as proof that consumers would be misled about the origin of goods.
The Board expressly stated that its conclusion was not based on trade mark similarity. Instead, it found that the combination of the contested designation, the brand owner’s market presence, the nature of the goods, and the manner in which the designation was used, created a risk that consumers would assume the existence of a commercial connection between the parties.
The registration was ultimately invalidated under Article 6(3)(1) of the Trade Mark Law.
The decision is important for two reasons. First, it confirms that losing a trade mark similarity claim under Article 7 does not prevent a win under Article 6. Second, it demonstrates the practical value of parallel proceedings, as findings from unfair competition cases may provide persuasive evidence when consumer confusion and deception are at the heart of a dispute.
As Kazakhstan’s practice concerning packaging imitation continues to develop, the interaction between competition law and trade mark law is likely to become an increasingly important element of brand enforcement strategies.
By: Ainur Zhussipova
GUARD: A Practical Model for Trade Mark Protection
A common misconception among businesses building a brand is that trade mark protection ends the moment a registration certificate is issued. In reality, that certificate marks the start of the work, not the end of it. Across most jurisdictions, common law and civil law alike, a trade mark is a right that has to be actively selected, checked, filed, defended and watched over its entire life. Skip any one of those disciplines, and the certificate on file becomes considerably less valuable than it appears.
A useful way to remember the full scope of what is required is “GUARD”: Generate, Uncover, Apply, Repel, and Detect.
Generate
Everything begins with the choice of mark itself, which does more to determine the strength of the eventual right than anything that follows. Invented or arbitrary terms, with no obvious connection to the goods or services they represent, tend to attract the broadest protection and are the hardest for competitors to erode. Descriptive or suggestive terms may feel more intuitive from a marketing perspective, but they are inherently harder to monopolise, easier for third parties to use legitimately, and more likely to be challenged or refused outright. The commercial team’s instinct and the legal team’s assessment need to meet at this stage, not after filing.
Uncover
Before any application is filed, a proper search of the relevant registers, and of the market itself, should uncover what is already there. This includes identical or confusingly similar marks already registered or pending in the same or related classes, but it should also extend to unregistered marks in active use and marks that have acquired a reputation without formal registration. Since most systems provide some form of protection to well-known marks regardless of registration status, skipping this step is one of the most common ways businesses end up funding a registration that is later opposed or cancelled, while also exposing themselves to infringement claims.
Apply
Filing is the most visible step, and often wrongly treated as the only one. A well-prepared application specifies the right classes of goods and services with precision, since an application that is too broad invites unnecessary objections, while one that is too narrow leaves the mark exposed in areas where the business may later wish to expand. Most systems then take the application through examination and a publication period during which third parties may object, so the filing itself is only the opening move in a process that can run for many months – or even years in some jurisdictions – before a right is secured.
Repel
A registered mark that is never enforced sends a signal to the market that free riding carries no consequence. Enforcement can take several forms: cease-and-desist correspondence, opposition or cancellation proceedings against conflicting applications, civil claims, criminal complaints where available, and customs recordals to intercept infringing goods at the border. Which route is appropriate depends heavily on the facts, the jurisdiction, and the commercial relationship at stake, but the underlying principle holds everywhere: a right that is not defended tends to weaken over time, and in many systems can be lost altogether through inaction.
Detect
Finally, none of the above matters if a business is not monitoring its market. Many registries, specifically across the Middle East and North Africa Region, do not flag a competing mark to an existing owner; instead, the burden falls on the rights holder to notice it, usually within a defined window after publication. The same applies to counterfeit goods, look-alike packaging, and unauthorised use online, all of which tend to surface long before anyone reports them voluntarily. A structured watch programme, whether run internally by a brand protection team or through an external watch service, is what turns a dormant certificate into an asset that is being protected.
Conclusion
Taken as a whole, GUARD reflects a simple point that is easy to state and surprisingly easy to overlook in practice: registration is one step in a longer discipline, not the destination. Businesses that treat their trade marks this way tend to hold on to them. Those that file and forget usually find out the difference at the worst possible moment.
By: Elias Nassif
COMPANY NEWS
Three New Members Join CWB Executive Committee
Lexology Index Ranks Eight CWB practitioners
The 2026 Lexology Index: IP Report, a research guide that lists the world’s leading IP professionals, has recognised eight CWB practitioners for their outstanding work.
Thought Leaders – Trade Marks
Recommended – Copyright
Recommended – Patents
Recommended – Trade Marks
For more information, please contact marketing@cwbip.com.
IN THE HOTSEAT
