New Ugandan trademark publication requirements prompt concerns

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

New Ugandan trademark publication requirements prompt concerns

Sponsored by

spoor-fisher-400px.png
Uganda flag with office clerk workplace background. National stationary concept with office tools.

Jennifer Colantoni of Spoor & Fisher summarises the changes under Uganda’s newly enacted trademark regulations and notes that the attorney general’s advice has been sought on one issue

Uganda’s new trademark regulations – the Trademark Regulations, No. 85 of 2023 – came into effect on February 2 2024. The new regulations supersede:

  • The Trademark Regulations, No.58 of 2012; and

  • The amendments introduced by the Trademark (Amendment) Regulations, No.9 of 2021.

The most notable changes involve the publication of trademarks. While trademarks were previously published by the Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation (UPPC), more recently, an electronic journal managed by the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) became available. This was a welcome development, as it standardised the cost of publication and enabled advertisements to be accessed via the URSB’s website.

Following the issuance of the new regulations, the following changes and developments are noted.

The publication of applications and notices

The publication of trademark applications and notices must, once again, appear in the Uganda Gazette, printed by the UPPC – there will be no further publication of applications and notices in the electronic URSB Intellectual Property Journal.

The republication of trademarks

All trademarks previously published in the electronic URSB Intellectual Property Journal must be republished in a special supplement of the Uganda Gazette by May 2 2024. This republication will be organised and funded by the URSB and UPPC, and no action is required by applicants.

Concerns have been raised that this republication should not reopen any finalised matters, such as the 60-day opposition period. The advice of the attorney general is being sought on this point.

Comment

The 2023 regulations are a welcome development, but the concerns touched on above do need to be addressed. Spoor & Fisher is monitoring the situation closely and will advise further as soon as there is news.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
Gift this article