Libya introduces substantial trademark renewal fees for foreign applicants

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

Cookies Settings

Libya introduces substantial trademark renewal fees for foreign applicants

Sponsored by

spoor-fisher-400px.png
Map of Libya.jpg

Jen Colantoni of Spoor & Fisher summarises Libya’s new $2,000 annual trademark renewal fee for foreign applicants and alerts brand owners to several strategic considerations

There has been an important development in Libya recently regarding trademark renewals, with the introduction of significant new fees for foreign applicants.

On renewal, foreign applicants now need to pay an official fee of $2,000 per annum. This payment can be made in one lump sum of $20,000 for the 10-year renewal period or in yearly instalments.

The authority for this development is Resolution No. 586 of 2024, dated November 27 2024, which was confirmed in a meeting involving Ministry of Economy and Trade officials on February 3 2025. The new fees apply to all renewals due after January 1 2025. At this stage, they are not being applied retrospectively.

The original notification also mentioned a requirement to submit a “financial statement” at the time of renewal. It is understood that this applies only to local applicants and is not a requirement for foreign applicants.

Once the initial renewal fee is paid, the renewal will be published, but it is not currently clear whether the new renewal fees include the publication fee or whether this will be a supplemental cost.

There is a grace period of six months for payment of the initial renewal fee and, if paid in instalments, the subsequent fees must be paid on or before the annual anniversary of the renewal date.

Considerations relating to the new scheme

There are frequent changes in leadership at the Libyan Trademarks Office, which often result in different practices.

The new fees have caused much concern among practitioners in the region and, while it is by no means certain, it remains a possibility that they may be revoked or revised. On this basis, the author recommends that for renewals that are not immediately due, applicants wait and see how things develop over the coming months. For renewals that are due immediately, or in the near future, clients may be wise to opt for yearly payments, because if the full fee has been paid and the requirement is subsequently revoked, it is unlikely that it would be possible to obtain any refund.

The only alternative to paying the new fee at the current time would be to file a fresh application. While this would come with less cost, it has the obvious disadvantage of the loss of the original filing date.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Armstrong Teasdale’s Jim Heinen Jr discusses the challenge of balancing billables, business development and family life and explains why not all patent lawyers are science nerds
From cross-border jurisdiction to the end of the transitional period, Powell Gilbert’s Ioana Sabau and Bryce Matthewson predict the biggest talking points ahead
A wave of office launches and lateral hires reflect the draw of patent disputes, but booming AI, semiconductor and data centre markets are offering an even bigger IP opportunity
The hire of Frederick Nicolle as a partner continues Pinsent Masons' expansion while reducing Simmons’ patent prosecution offering in London to zero
The expansion into Granada forms part of a national ‘decentralisation’ strategy focused on providing proximity to research and tech businesses away from traditional hubs
Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
Gift this article