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

Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
A Tokyo District Court ruling concerning movie spoilers, and a second chance for VLSI against Intel were also among the top talking points
Practitioners believe new AI tools at the USPTO will not replace lawyers or disrupt revenue, but instead expose where a trademark attorney’s value lies
Leighton Cassidy Legal hopes to leverage its founder's international experience and provide clients with a rare chance to receive litigation and prosecution under one umbrella
Gift this article