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

News of Dolby suing Snap over AV1 and HEVC patents and SCOTUS offering guidance on the liability of internet service providers were also among the top talking points
Arrival of Caitlin Heard will bolster the soon-to-be-created Ashurst Perkins Coie’s IP presence in the capital
AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Gift this article