Local Insights

Social media-fuelled demand for luxury counterfeits such as the ‘Takealot Tirkin’ is reshaping consumer culture across Africa and raising pressing questions for brands. Haadya Mosafeer of INLEX finds a potential answer in Mauritius’ response

Cwengile Cwele, with oversight from Chyreene Truluck of Spoor & Fisher South Africa, explains how the new process works and the implications for practitioners and rights holders

Pravir Palayathan of INLEX explains Mauritius’ customs-led system for protecting trademarks, regulating authorised importers and exporters, and swiftly seizing counterfeit goods

In 2016, Korea has been substantially re-shaping its IP system. One such change is the Trade Mark Act, which has been comprehensively re-drafted. One of the main changes in trade mark is the non-use cancellation of the registered mark. When a registered trade mark has not been used in Korea for three consecutive years, third parties can seek to cancel it on the grounds of non-use. According to the existing Act, only an interested party can request cancellation of a non-used mark. However, under the new system, legal standing is no longer required; therefore, any person may request cancellation of a non-used registered mark. The new system is expected to accelerate the procedure and give more opportunity to those who actually intend to use the mark by remedying weaknesses in the registration system.

Does exporting parts or components of a patented product for final assembly outside the country infringe the patent? Recently, the Korean Supreme Court answered this question for the first time in Korea in its decision 2014Da42110 (July 23 2015).

Following the Myriad decision in the United States, the High Court of Australia recently denied the patent eligibility of isolated genes of BRCA1 DNA. Along with the Alice decision from the United States, this is truly a new wave. What we patent reflects the most fundamental social decisions in our patent system. It is worth seeing how Korea is riding on this wave and balancing its system.

A Turkish case highlights the importance of Article 138(3) when patent claims are amended during an invalidation action, say Selin Sinem Erciyas, Aysel Korkmaz Yatkın, and Bengü Şen Gürakan of Gün + Partners

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos provides a status update on the pending case in the lead-up to oral proceedings before the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal on May 8 2026

Igor Charles and Fatima Chirazi of INLEX report on the rejection of Decathlon’s design, unfair competition, and parasitism claims over snorkelling masks, confirming a narrow scope of protection where design freedom is constrained

Eduardo Hallak, Juliana Neves, and Gabriela Monteiro of Licks Attorneys explain how Brazilian courts have reshaped divisional patent practice and assess the practical impact of the current framework

María Aurora García of Berken IP examines how Argentine courts are using dynamic injunctions to tackle illegal sports streaming, particularly in the context of major events such as the football World Cup

Brazil is establishing itself as a hub for biological agricultural formulations. Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Gislaine Zulli of Licks Attorneys analyse a fast-developing market and a decade of related patent activity

Luis Emilio Moncada of Becerril, Coca & Becerril explains why provisional measures are an increasingly valuable mechanism under Mexican intellectual property law as the country prepares to co-host the football World Cup

Fernanda Villalobos of Becerril, Coca & Becerril explains how Mexican trademark law now allows descriptive signs to acquire protection through market use and consumer recognition

Stephania Cardiel of Becerril, Coca & Becerril examines how recent reforms signal a regional move towards faster, more internationally aligned innovation systems

Raluca Vasilescu of Cabinet M Oproiu considers how patent applicants may need to adapt their approaches as a result of widespread political and economic uncertainty

Jean-Paul Wagner and Tiago Leal of Ipsilon Luxembourg explore recent judicial advancements and global trends shaping the future of AI innovation, and how to turn informed intellectual property strategies into engines of commercial success

Raluca Vasilescu of Cabinet M Oproiu finds that AI assistants are not very helpful for building and enforcing patent strategies – and explains why