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 2025

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

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

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article