Africa: New Industrial Property Code in Mozambique

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Africa: New Industrial Property Code in Mozambique

ip-code-mozambique-min-final.jpg

The Council of Ministers of Mozambique approved a new Mozambique Industrial Property Code on December 31 2015, which will come into force on March 31 2016, replacing the 2006 Industrial Property Code.

Differences between the 2006 IP Code and the new IP Code relate mainly to revised time periods, re-wording and clarification of certain sections, administrative and format revisions. A limited number of substantive legal changes have been made. Some of these changes are that the deadline within which to submit outstanding documents (such as powers of attorney) or to provide information to the Industrial Property Institute (IPI) upon request, has changed to 30 days – extended from 15 days. Furthermore, the deadline for appealing against the Director General's decision has been brought forward by 30 days.

An interesting development is that the new IP Code now provides for the provisional refusal of a patent, utility model or industrial design application by the Director General. In addition, the new IP Code makes provision for any person who feels that the grant of an industrial design or utility model would be detrimental to him is entitled to oppose the application.

With regard to trade marks, the new IP Code expands the comparison of marks upon examination to "related" or similar goods and services. Opposition deadlines have been brought forward by 30 days. Thus, oppositions must be lodged within 30 days of advertisement and a further extension for another 60 days is provided for.

An important development is that it is no longer essential to show that the declaration of intent to use a mark (DIU) should relate to all goods or services included in the registration. Furthermore, DIUs must now be lodged every five years, calculated from the original application date of the International Registration.

Finally, the IPI Bulletin will now be published monthly, instead of bi-monthly which will provide interested parties with a better opportunity to consider advertised marks for opposition purposes.

van-der-Merwe

Marco van der Merwe


Spoor & Fisher 

Building No. 13 

Highgrove Office Park 

Oak Avenue 

Centurion 

Pretoria, 0157 

Republic of South Africa

info@spoor.com 

www.spoor.com



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article