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 2025

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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article