China Unveils Major Amendments to Patent Examination Guidelines: New Standards for AI, Biotechnology, and Dual Filings Take Effect January 1, 2026

 

Summary

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has announced comprehensive amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines, effective January 1, 2026. The revised Guidelines introduce significant changes to inventor disclosure requirements, dual filing procedures, inventiveness assessment standards, re-examination protocols, and specialized examination criteria for artificial intelligence and bitstream-related inventions, marking a substantial modernization of China's patent examination framework.

Overview of the Revised Guidelines

On January 1, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) will implement substantially revised Patent Examination Guidelines, introducing fundamental changes to patent examination procedures, substantive assessment criteria, and administrative practices. These amendments represent the most comprehensive update to China's patent examination framework in recent years, addressing emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, refining established procedures for dual patent filings and divisional applications, strengthening examination standards for inventiveness, and modernizing re-examination and invalidation proceedings. The revised Guidelines will directly impact patent prosecution strategies, claim drafting practices, applicant disclosure obligations, and enforcement proceedings for all patents filed or examined in China after January 1, 2026.

I. Amendments to Preliminary Examination and Transaction Processing

1. Mandatory Completion of Inventor Information in Request Forms

The revised Guidelines introduce stricter requirements for inventor disclosure in patent applications. Under the new rules, only genuine inventors may be listed in the request form accompanying a patent application. An inventor is defined as a natural person who has made a substantive creative contribution to the technical solution claimed in the patent. Corporate entities, research institutions, or other legal persons cannot be designated as inventors, regardless of their role in funding or facilitating the research.

The amendments require applicants to provide complete identification information for all listed inventors at the time of filing, including ID card numbers for Chinese nationals or passport numbers for foreign inventors. This information must be included in the request form submitted to CNIPA when filing the patent application. Failure to provide complete inventor identification may result in formality objections during preliminary examination.

CNIPA examiners will generally not verify the accuracy of inventor designations unless there is credible evidence of non-compliance, such as disputes among named inventors, challenges from true inventors claiming omission, or documentary evidence indicating that listed individuals did not contribute to the invention. However, applicants bear full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of inventor information, and false or fraudulent inventor designations may expose applicants to administrative penalties and invalidation risks.

2. Declaration of Priority in Divisional Applications

The revised Guidelines clarify the treatment of priority claims in divisional applications filed from parent applications. Under Chinese patent law, applicants may file divisional applications to pursue subject matter that was disclosed in a parent application but claimed separately, often to overcome unity of invention objections or to pursue distinct inventive concepts.

The amendments establish that if the parent application validly claimed priority from an earlier foreign or domestic application, but the divisional application fails to declare that priority claim in its request form, the divisional application will be deemed not to have claimed priority. This represents a stricter approach than prior practice, where priority claims were sometimes considered to be automatically inherited from the parent application.

However, the Guidelines provide a remedial mechanism: if an examiner determines that a divisional application should have claimed priority but failed to do so in the request form, the examiner will issue a notice of deemed non-claim of priority, providing the applicant with an opportunity to restore the priority claim within a prescribed time limit. Applicants should therefore ensure that all relevant priority claims are explicitly declared in divisional applications at the time of filing to avoid procedural complications and potential loss of priority rights.

3. Revised Calculation of Additional Official Fees for Lengthy Specifications

Chinese patent law imposes additional official fees for patent applications with specifications exceeding 30 pages, calculated on a sliding scale based on the total number of pages. The amendments introduce a significant exception for biotechnology and pharmaceutical inventions that include computer-readable sequence listings.

Under the revised Guidelines, when an applicant submits a sequence listing in the prescribed electronic format required by CNIPA (typically as a separate computer-readable file conforming to WIPO Standard ST.26), the pages comprising the sequence listing will no longer be counted toward the total page count of the specification for purposes of calculating additional fees. This change reduces the filing costs for biotechnology patents, which often include extensive nucleotide or amino acid sequences that would otherwise result in substantial fee surcharges.

To benefit from this exemption, applicants must ensure that sequence listings are submitted in the format and manner prescribed by CNIPA regulations. Sequence listings embedded in the body of the specification as plain text will continue to be counted toward page limits and fee calculations.

II. Amendments to Substantive Examination of Inventions

1. Stricter Handling of "Dual Applications on the Same Day"

Chinese patent law permits applicants to file both an invention patent application (subject to substantive examination with a longer prosecution timeline but a 20-year protection term) and a utility model patent application (subject to only formal examination with faster grant but a 10-year protection term) for the same technical solution on the same day, accompanied by a declaration in the request form. This "dual filing" strategy allows applicants to obtain rapid protection through the utility model while pursuing broader, long-term protection through the invention patent.

Under the previous Guidelines, if the invention patent application met all requirements for grant, the applicant could choose whether to retain the invention patent or the utility model patent, or to amend the invention patent claims to narrow their scope such that both patents could coexist without claiming identical subject matter.

The revised Guidelines eliminate this flexibility. Under the new rules, if the invention patent application is allowable and the applicant wishes to proceed with grant, the applicant must abandon the utility model patent. If the applicant refuses to abandon the utility model, the invention patent application will be rejected or deemed withdrawn. The option to amend the invention patent to differentiate it from the utility model and retain both patents has been removed.

This amendment reflects a policy shift aimed at preventing indefinite extension of patent term through strategic manipulation of dual filings. Applicants employing dual filing strategies should carefully consider which form of protection offers greater commercial value and be prepared to relinquish the utility model if the invention patent is granted.

2. Refined Examination Standards for Inventiveness (Non-Obviousness)

The revised Guidelines introduce clarifications to the assessment of inventive step, which is the Chinese equivalent of non-obviousness in other patent systems. Inventive step requires that a claimed invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant technical field in light of the prior art.

The amendments clarify two critical principles:

First: The inventive step assessment is based solely on the claims. Technical features, effects, or advantages described in the specification or drawings but not recited in the claims will not be considered when evaluating whether the claimed invention represents an inventive advance over the prior art. This underscores the importance of comprehensive claim drafting and ensures that all technical features essential to the inventive concept are explicitly recited in the claims.

Second: Even if a technical feature is included in the claims, it will not be taken into account for inventive step assessment if it does not contribute to solving the technical problem addressed by the invention. In other words, claim features that are irrelevant to the inventive concept, or that represent routine design choices unrelated to the technical contribution, will be disregarded when assessing whether the claim as a whole would have been obvious. This prevents applicants from artificially creating inventiveness by adding technically insignificant features to otherwise obvious claims.

These clarifications emphasize the need for strategic claim drafting that clearly articulates the technical contribution and ensures that all claim elements are linked to the solution of a defined technical problem.

III. Amendments to Re-examination and Invalidation Procedures

1. Strengthened Principle of "Res Judicata"

The revised Guidelines strengthen the finality of invalidation decisions by expanding the application of the res judicata principle. Under previous practice, an invalidation request would not be accepted if it was based on the "same reasons and evidence" as a prior invalidation request that had already been decided.

The amendments broaden this prohibition to encompass requests based on "same or substantially the same reasons and evidence." This means that an invalidation request that merely repackages or reformulates arguments and evidence previously considered and rejected will be refused, even if the new request is not technically identical to the prior request.

This amendment serves several policy objectives: (i) preserving the finality and authority of invalidation decisions; (ii) limiting the ability of serial challengers to file repeated invalidation requests that burden patent owners with redundant defense costs; (iii) preventing abuse of the invalidation system by parties seeking to harass patent owners or delay enforcement; and (iv) conserving administrative resources by avoiding duplicative examination of issues that have already been resolved.

Parties contemplating invalidation challenges should ensure that all relevant grounds and evidence are presented in the initial invalidation request, as opportunities to raise new arguments based on the same evidence may be foreclosed by the res judicata principle.

2. Restrictions on Qualifications of Invalidation Requesters

The revised Guidelines explicitly state that invalidation requests must reflect the genuine intention of the requester and must be filed by or on behalf of the actual party seeking invalidation. This amendment addresses a growing problem in Chinese patent practice: the filing of invalidation requests under false names, often accompanied by forged signatures or fabricated authorization documents.

Such conduct violates the principle of good faith that underlies patent and administrative proceedings, undermines public confidence in the integrity of the patent invalidation system, and distorts fair competition by enabling anonymous or pseudonymous challenges that shield the true party in interest from accountability.

CNIPA may refuse to accept invalidation requests where there is evidence that the named requester is not the true party in interest, or where authorization documents appear to be fraudulent. Parties found to have submitted false or forged documents may face administrative penalties and potential referral for criminal prosecution.

IV. Amendments to Examination Standards for Artificial Intelligence Inventions

Specialized Requirements for Drafting AI Patent Specifications

Recognizing the rapid growth of patent applications related to artificial intelligence and machine learning, the revised Guidelines introduce specialized drafting requirements for AI-related inventions to ensure that patent disclosures are sufficiently detailed to enable persons skilled in the art to implement the claimed inventions.

For inventions involving the construction or training of AI models: The specification must clearly describe the essential architecture of the AI model, including key modules, layers, and their interconnections. For neural network-based models, this includes description of input layers, hidden layers, output layers, and the connections between them. The specification must also describe the training process, including the selection and preparation of training data, the configuration of training parameters (such as learning rates, batch sizes, and optimization algorithms), and the methodology for evaluating model performance.

For inventions involving the application of AI models or algorithms in specific technical fields: The specification must explain how the AI model or algorithm interacts with the relevant technical field or application scenario. This includes describing how input data specific to the field is configured and fed into the model, how the model processes that data in a manner relevant to the technical problem being solved, and how output data is generated and utilized to achieve the technical effect. The disclosure must demonstrate that there is an inherent correlation between the AI model and the specific technical application, such that the invention represents a concrete technical solution rather than an abstract algorithm.

These requirements are intended to prevent overbroad claiming of AI technologies and to ensure that AI patent disclosures provide sufficient technical detail to support the claimed scope of protection. Applicants should work closely with patent drafters who understand both AI technology and Chinese patent disclosure requirements to ensure compliance with these standards.

V. Amendments to Examination Standards for Bitstream-Related Inventions

1. Clarification that Simple Bitstream Claims Are Not Patent-Eligible

The revised Guidelines explicitly state that claims directed solely to a simple bitstream—without structural or functional limitations beyond the data content itself—fall under the category of "rules and methods of intellectual activity" and are therefore not eligible for patent protection under Chinese patent law.

A bitstream generated by a video coding method is essentially a functional dataset that enables reconstruction of video data at the decoding end through predefined syntax rules and data structures. At the patent protection level, bitstreams are functionally similar to abstract data structures (which define how data is organized) and signals (which emphasize physical transmission characteristics). Chinese patent law does not recognize data structures or abstract signals as patentable subject matter, and the revised Guidelines extend this exclusion to simple bitstream claims.

This clarification is particularly relevant to the video coding and telecommunications industries, where patent applications frequently include claims to bitstreams generated by novel encoding algorithms.

2. Permissible Claim Formats for Bitstream Storage and Transmission Methods

While claims directed solely to bitstreams are not patent-eligible, the revised Guidelines clarify that claims to methods of storing or transmitting bitstreams may be patentable if they include a step of performing a video encoding method that generates the bitstream, followed by a step of storing or transmitting the resulting bitstream.

In other words, the claim must recite the underlying technical process (encoding) that produces the bitstream, not merely the bitstream itself. This ensures that the claim is directed to a technical method rather than an abstract data structure.

3. Permissible Claim Formats for Computer-Readable Storage Media

The revised Guidelines also clarify the requirements for claims to computer-readable storage media storing bitstreams. Such claims must include three elements: (i) the storage medium itself; (ii) a program or instructions stored on the medium; and (iii) a bitstream stored on the medium, where the bitstream is generated by executing the program or instructions using a processor to perform a video encoding method.

This formulation ensures that the claim is tied to a concrete technical implementation involving executable code and hardware, rather than claiming the bitstream data in the abstract.

Strategic Implications for Patent Applicants

The amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines reflect CNIPA's efforts to modernize China's patent system in response to rapid technological developments, particularly in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and digital media. Patent applicants and practitioners should review pending and future applications to ensure compliance with the revised standards, particularly with respect to:

• Inventor disclosure: Ensuring complete and accurate identification information for all inventors.
• Dual filing strategies: Recognizing that invention patents and utility models cannot coexist for identical subject matter and planning accordingly.
• Claim drafting: Ensuring that all technical features essential to inventiveness are recited in the claims and contribute to solving the technical problem.
• AI disclosures: Providing detailed architectural and training information for AI models and demonstrating concrete technical applications.
• Bitstream claims: Formulating claims to bitstream-related inventions as methods or media claims that include the underlying encoding process.
• Re-examination and invalidation: Presenting comprehensive grounds and evidence in initial filings, recognizing the strengthened res judicata principle.

Significance

The January 1, 2026 amendments to China's Patent Examination Guidelines represent a comprehensive modernization of the country's patent examination framework, addressing critical procedural, substantive, and technological issues that have emerged as China's innovation economy has matured. The stricter requirements for inventor disclosure, the elimination of dual patent retention options, the refined inventiveness standards, the strengthened res judicata principle, and the specialized examination criteria for AI and bitstream inventions collectively signal CNIPA's commitment to raising patent quality, preventing strategic manipulation of patent procedures, and ensuring that the patent system adapts to emerging technologies. For domestic and international patent applicants, these amendments require careful attention to compliance, strategic adjustment of filing and prosecution practices, and enhanced coordination between technical experts and patent professionals to ensure that applications meet the new standards. The amendments also underscore China's continued integration into the global intellectual property system and its alignment with international best practices in patent examination.

Maldives Enacts Landmark Trademark Act 2025: First Comprehensive Statutory Framework Replacing Cautionary Notice System

 

Summary

The Republic of Maldives enacted its first comprehensive Trademark Act (Law No. 19/2025), establishing a modern registration regime aligned with international standards to replace the long-standing informal cautionary notice system. The Act introduces examination procedures, opposition processes, protection for well-known marks, and civil and criminal remedies, with a twelve-month implementation period before taking effect on November 11, 2026.

Historic Legislative Development

On November 11, 2025, the Republic of Maldives achieved a historic milestone in intellectual property law by enacting the Trademark Act (Law No. 19/2025), establishing the country's first comprehensive statutory framework for trademark protection. This landmark legislation represents a transformative shift from the Maldives' traditional reliance on informal cautionary notice publications to a modern, internationally aligned registration system featuring robust examination procedures, structured opposition mechanisms, and comprehensive enforcement remedies. The Act is scheduled to come into force twelve months after its enactment, on November 11, 2026, providing a transition period for stakeholders to prepare for the new regime and for the government to establish the necessary administrative infrastructure, procedural regulations, and fee structures.

Institutional Framework: Maldives Intellectual Property Office Act 2025

The Trademark Act will operate in conjunction with the Maldives Intellectual Property Office Act 2025 (Law No. 12/2025), which establishes the institutional infrastructure necessary for effective intellectual property administration in the Maldives. The IP Office Act creates the legal foundation for a dedicated intellectual property office responsible for examining trademark applications, maintaining the national trademark register, conducting opposition proceedings, and administering enforcement mechanisms. The IP Office Act is set to come into effect on January 1, 2026, providing a ten-month period for the IP Office to operationalize before the substantive provisions of the Trademark Act take effect. This staggered implementation ensures that administrative capacity, trained personnel, and operational systems are in place before trademark applications can be filed and processed under the new statutory regime.

Regulatory Framework and Implementation Timeline

While the Trademark Act establishes the substantive legal framework for trademark protection, the detailed procedures, fee schedules, and operational requirements will be governed by implementing regulations that have not yet been published. The legislation mandates that these regulations must be promulgated and brought into force no later than May 11, 2027—eighteen months after the enactment of the Act and six months after the Act itself takes effect. These regulations will prescribe critical operational details including application procedures, examination standards, opposition filing requirements, renewal processes, recordal procedures for assignments and licenses, and fee structures for all trademark-related services. Until the regulations are published, certain operational aspects of the new system will remain unclear, requiring trademark practitioners and rights holders to monitor regulatory developments closely.

Key Features of the Maldives Trademark Act 2025

Broad Definition of Trademark

The Act adopts a modern, expansive definition of a trademark as "any sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another." This definition encompasses traditional word and device marks, as well as diverse forms of brand identification including names, letters, numbers, figurative elements, symbols, shapes, patterns, and combinations thereof. The broad definition aligns with international best practices and permits registration of non-conventional marks such as three-dimensional shapes, color combinations, and potentially other non-visual signs, subject to their capacity to function as source identifiers and comply with graphical representation requirements that will be specified in the implementing regulations.

Certification Marks and Collective Marks

The Act provides statutory recognition and protection for certification marks and collective marks, reflecting international standards for specialized categories of trademarks. Certification marks indicate that goods or services possess particular characteristics, quality standards, geographical origin, or other attributes certified by the mark owner. Collective marks are used by members of associations or groups to identify goods or services originating from members of the collective. These provisions enable industry associations, cooperatives, geographical indication groups, and standards organizations to protect collective branding and quality certification systems under Maldivian law.

Convention Priority

The Act includes provision for claiming convention priority, allowing applicants who have filed trademark applications in other jurisdictions to claim the benefit of their foreign filing dates when filing subsequent applications in the Maldives, provided the Maldives application is filed within six months of the initial foreign filing. However, it is important to note that the Maldives has not yet acceded to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which establishes the international framework for reciprocal priority rights. Until the Maldives formally accedes to the Paris Convention, the practical utility of the convention priority provision may be limited, as foreign applicants may not be able to claim Maldivian priority when filing in Paris Convention member states, and vice versa. Nevertheless, the inclusion of this provision signals the Maldives' intention to align with international intellectual property norms and potentially accede to the Paris Convention in the future.

Protection for Well-Known Marks

The Act expressly provides protection for well-known marks, recognizing that certain trademarks have acquired such extensive reputation and recognition that they merit protection beyond the specific goods and services for which they are registered. This provision allows owners of well-known marks to prevent registration and use of identical or similar marks on dissimilar goods or services where such use would indicate a connection with the well-known mark owner and would likely damage the owner's interests. The protection of well-known marks reflects international standards established by the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, ensuring that famous international brands receive appropriate protection in the Maldivian market even if they are not registered or used extensively in the country.

Examination on Absolute and Relative Grounds

The Act establishes a substantive examination system requiring the Maldives Intellectual Property Office to examine trademark applications on both absolute and relative grounds. Absolute grounds for refusal include objections based on lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness, deceptiveness, public policy considerations, and functional characteristics. Relative grounds for refusal involve conflicts with earlier registered or pending trademarks, including likelihood of confusion with prior marks. This dual examination framework ensures that only distinctive, non-conflicting marks receive registration, protecting both the public interest and the rights of earlier trademark owners. The detailed examination standards and procedures will be specified in the implementing regulations.

Three-Month Opposition Period

Following substantive examination, applications that meet registration requirements will be published for opposition, providing third parties with a three-month period to file oppositions challenging the registration. This opposition mechanism allows earlier rights holders, competitors, and other interested parties to protect their interests by objecting to registrations that may conflict with their prior rights or violate substantive legal requirements. The three-month opposition period aligns with international practice and ensures adequate opportunity for third-party participation in the registration process while maintaining reasonable procedural timelines.

Ten-Year Registration Terms and Renewal

Trademark registrations under the Act will have an initial term of ten years from the filing date, renewable for successive ten-year periods upon payment of prescribed renewal fees. The Act provides a six-month grace period following the expiration of a registration term, during which renewal may still be effected upon payment of additional late renewal fees. This renewable protection structure aligns with international standards and provides trademark owners with indefinite protection so long as they maintain their registrations through timely renewal and continue to use their marks in commerce.

Vulnerability to Cancellation for Non-Use

The Act introduces a use-it-or-lose-it principle, rendering trademark registrations vulnerable to cancellation for non-use after five years from the date of registration. Any interested party may petition for cancellation of a registration on the grounds that the trademark has not been genuinely used in the Maldives in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered during a continuous five-year period. This provision prevents trademark warehousing and ensures that the register reflects marks that are actually in commercial use, freeing up unused marks for adoption by bona fide commercial users. The trademark owner may defend against a non-use cancellation action by demonstrating genuine use during the relevant period or by establishing valid reasons for non-use.

Civil and Criminal Remedies for Infringement and Counterfeiting

The Act establishes comprehensive civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms to protect trademark rights. Civil remedies available to trademark owners include injunctions restraining infringement, damages or accounts of profits compensating for economic harm, delivery up and destruction of infringing goods, and declaratory relief. Criminal penalties are prescribed for intentional trademark infringement and counterfeiting, reflecting the serious nature of trademark piracy and the need for deterrent sanctions. The availability of both civil and criminal remedies provides trademark owners with flexible enforcement options tailored to the severity and nature of the infringement.

Border Control Enforcement

Recognizing that the Maldives serves as both a destination for imported consumer goods and a transshipment point for regional trade, the Act includes border control enforcement provisions empowering customs authorities to detain and seize suspected counterfeit goods at ports of entry. Trademark owners may record their registrations with customs authorities and request suspension of release of goods bearing infringing marks. This ex officio enforcement mechanism provides a critical line of defense against the importation and distribution of counterfeit products, protecting both trademark owners and Maldivian consumers from fraudulent goods.

Status of Existing Cautionary Notices

For decades, trademark protection in the Maldives has been achieved through the publication of cautionary notices in newspapers and official gazettes, warning the public against unauthorized use of particular marks. While this informal system provided a degree of public notice and potential common-law rights, it lacked the legal certainty, enforceability, and international recognition associated with formal trademark registration systems. A critical question arising from the enactment of the Trademark Act concerns the legal status and treatment of existing cautionary notice publications.

Absence of Express Transitional Provisions: The Act contains no express transitional provisions governing the treatment of marks previously published as cautionary notices. This absence creates legal uncertainty regarding whether, and to what extent, cautionary notice holders can claim statutory priority, seniority, or other preferential rights when applying for formal registration under the new system. In the absence of such provisions, trademark owners should not expect to automatically claim statutory priority or seniority for their marks based solely on cautionary notice publication history. The publication dates of cautionary notices will not be recognized as official filing dates or priority dates under the new registration system unless specific transitional regulations are promulgated to confer such rights.

Evidential Value of Cautionary Notices: Notwithstanding the lack of statutory priority, existing cautionary notice publications are anticipated to serve as valuable evidence of prior use and established trademark rights when applying for formal registration under the new Act. Evidence of long-standing cautionary notice publication, coupled with proof of actual commercial use in the Maldives, may be relevant in several contexts: (i) demonstrating acquired distinctiveness for marks that might otherwise be considered descriptive or non-distinctive; (ii) establishing earlier rights in opposition proceedings against conflicting applications; (iii) supporting claims for well-known mark status; and (iv) defending against non-use cancellation actions by demonstrating historical use predating formal registration. While such evidence may not constitute legal priority under the Act, it could prove decisive in examination proceedings, opposition disputes, and litigation concerning trademark validity and ownership.

Recommendation to Maintain Cautionary Notices: In light of the legal uncertainty surrounding the status of cautionary notices and the potential evidential value of continued publication, we strongly recommend that trademark owners maintain their existing cautionary notice publications until the new registration system is fully operational and they have secured formal registrations for their marks. Continued publication during the transition period ensures maximum protection of trademark rights, preserves evidence of continuous use, and safeguards against potential arguments that rights were abandoned during the transition to the new system.

Reported 'Transition' Period: November 11, 2026 to November 11, 2027

It has been reported in intellectual property circles that the Maldives government intends to establish a twelve-month 'transition' period running from November 11, 2026 (when the Act takes effect) to November 11, 2027, during which trademark owners who previously relied on cautionary notices must formally register their marks in order to preserve their prior rights. The reported purpose of this transition period is to provide cautionary notice holders with a priority window to file formal applications and secure registrations before the general public can apply for the same marks.

Legal Uncertainty: In the absence of express transitional provisions in the Act itself granting priority or seniority rights to marks published as cautionary notices, the legal mechanism by which such a transition period would operate remains unclear. Absent specific statutory language or implementing regulations establishing the terms, conditions, and legal effects of the transition period, it is difficult to determine: (i) which cautionary notices would qualify for transitional benefits; (ii) what evidence would be required to demonstrate entitlement; (iii) whether transitional applications would receive accelerated examination or registration; (iv) how conflicts between multiple cautionary notice holders claiming rights to the same mark would be resolved; and (v) what legal consequences would flow from failure to file during the transition period.

Anticipated Regulatory Clarification: It is expected that the implementing regulations, which must be published no later than May 11, 2027, will clarify the existence, parameters, and legal effects of any transition period. Rights holders are advised to monitor regulatory developments closely and prepare to file applications promptly when the registration system opens to avoid potential loss of priority or preferential treatment.

Strategic Recommendations for Rights Holders

Trademark owners with commercial interests in the Maldives should undertake the following preparatory measures in anticipation of the new registration system:

First, conduct a comprehensive audit of existing trademark portfolios to identify all marks currently protected through cautionary notices, assess their continued commercial relevance, and determine priority for formal registration under the new Act.

Second, compile and organize documentation evidencing prior use of marks in the Maldives, including dated samples of use on goods and in advertising, sales data, market research demonstrating reputation and recognition, and records of cautionary notice publications. This evidence will be critical in supporting applications, defending against oppositions, and establishing priority in disputes.

Third, monitor the publication of implementing regulations to understand procedural requirements, fee structures, and any transitional provisions that may affect filing strategies and timelines.

Fourth, maintain existing cautionary notice publications throughout the transition period to preserve evidence of continuous use and avoid potential challenges to rights.

Fifth, prepare to file applications promptly when the registration system opens, particularly if a transitional priority period is established for cautionary notice holders.

International Alignment and Future Accessions

The enactment of the Trademark Act positions the Maldives to participate more fully in the international intellectual property system. While the country has not yet acceded to key international treaties such as the Paris Convention, the Madrid Protocol, or the Nice Agreement, the establishment of a modern trademark registration system aligned with international standards represents an essential precondition for such accessions. Future participation in these international frameworks would enable Maldivian trademark owners to secure protection abroad more efficiently through the Madrid System for international registration, while facilitating foreign trademark owners' access to the Maldivian market through streamlined international filing procedures. The Maldives' adoption of international classification systems, well-known mark protection, and convention priority provisions signals a clear trajectory toward fuller integration into the global IP regime.

Significance

The enactment of the Maldives Trademark Act 2025 (Law No. 19/2025) represents a watershed transformation in the country's intellectual property landscape, replacing decades of informal cautionary notice practice with a modern, comprehensive statutory registration system. The Act introduces internationally aligned standards for trademark protection, including broad definitions of protectable signs, specialized provisions for certification and collective marks, protection for well-known marks, substantive examination on absolute and relative grounds, structured opposition procedures, renewable ten-year registration terms, use-based cancellation mechanisms, and robust civil and criminal enforcement remedies including border control measures. The staggered implementation timeline—with the IP Office Act taking effect on January 1, 2026, the Trademark Act taking effect on November 11, 2026, and implementing regulations due by May 11, 2027—provides a transitional period for establishing administrative infrastructure and clarifying operational procedures. The absence of express transitional provisions for cautionary notices creates legal uncertainty that will hopefully be resolved through implementing regulations, but trademark owners are advised to maintain cautionary notice publications and prepare comprehensive evidence of prior use while monitoring regulatory developments. The reported twelve-month transition period from November 11, 2026 to November 11, 2027 may provide priority filing opportunities for cautionary notice holders, subject to regulatory clarification. This historic legislative development elevates the Maldives' trademark system to international standards, providing enhanced legal certainty and enforcement mechanisms for domestic and foreign brand owners, and positions the country for potential accession to key international IP treaties. Rights holders should conduct portfolio audits, compile evidence of prior use, and prepare for timely transition to avoid loss of protection in this rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Nepal Issues Critical Compliance Deadlines for Pending Trademark Applications Following September 2025 Civil Unrest

 

Summary

The Government of Nepal has issued mandatory compliance deadlines for trademark applicants following the destruction of physical trademark files during the September 2025 GenZ protest. Applicants with pending applications exceeding seven years must submit required documents by February 28, 2026, while applicants whose marks completed opposition periods must apply for registration certificates by May 31, 2026, failing which applications will be automatically cancelled.

Background and Context

On December 1, 2025, the Department of Industry, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies, Government of Nepal, issued a critical notice regarding trademark registration procedures following unprecedented civil disturbances. This notice supersedes and clarifies an earlier notification dated August 19, 2025, which had been temporarily suspended by order dated September 24, 2025. The suspension was necessitated by widespread arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred nationwide on September 9, 2025, during the GenZ protest. These incidents resulted in the destruction of numerous physical trademark application files maintained by the Industrial Property Section of the Department of Industry, creating a hostile operational environment and severely disrupting administrative functions.

Impact on Trademark Registry Operations

The civil unrest caused significant damage to the physical infrastructure and documentary records of Nepal's trademark administration system. The destruction of paper files, many of which contained original application materials, supporting documents, and correspondence dating back several years, has necessitated a comprehensive review of pending applications and the establishment of strict compliance timelines to reconstitute the official record. The Department has acknowledged that the hostile conditions created by the September 9 incidents temporarily paralyzed departmental operations, requiring a systematic approach to resume normal trademark registration services while addressing the documentary gaps created by the file destruction.

Mandatory Requirement 1: Applications Pending Due to Incomplete Documents

The Department has established a 90-day compliance window expiring on February 28, 2026 for all trademark applicants whose applications have been pending for more than seven (7) years due to incomplete documentation. This category encompasses applications that were filed with the Nepal Trademarks Registry but remain incomplete because the applicant failed to submit required supporting documents, respond to official objections, or comply with formal requirements during the examination process.

Mandatory Action Required: All affected applicants must file a formal request for resumption of examination, together with all outstanding required documents, within the 90-day period commencing from December 1, 2025. The submission must include all documents that were previously requested by the Registry but not supplied, as well as any additional materials necessary to complete the examination of the application.

Consequence of Non-Compliance: The Department has explicitly warned that failure to submit the required documents by the February 28, 2026 deadline will result in automatic (suo moto) cancellation of all trademark applications that have been pending for a period exceeding seven years. This cancellation action will be taken unilaterally by the Trademarks Registry, without requiring any further notice to the applicant. Once cancelled, such applications will be deemed abandoned and permanently removed from the official records of the Registry. No revival or reinstatement of abandoned applications will be permitted after the deadline.

Policy Going Forward: The Department has announced that this seven-year rule will apply prospectively to all trademark applications. Any application that remains pending for more than seven years due to the applicant's failure to submit required documents will, henceforth, be automatically deemed abandoned and removed from official records. This represents a significant policy shift aimed at clearing the backlog of dormant applications and ensuring that only active applicants with genuine commercial interests maintain their place in the registration queue.

Mandatory Requirement 2: Applications Completing Opposition Period

The Department has established a six-month compliance window expiring on May 31, 2026 for trademark applicants whose marks were published in the Industrial Property Bulletin prior to the issuance of this December 1, 2025 notice, and whose opposition period has expired without any third-party opposition being filed.

Under Nepal's trademark registration system, applications that successfully pass examination are published in the Industrial Property Bulletin, allowing third parties an opportunity to file oppositions against registration. If no opposition is filed within the statutory opposition period, the application becomes eligible for final registration, and the applicant must submit a formal request for issuance of the Registration Certificate, along with payment of prescribed fees and submission of any final documents required by the Registry.

Mandatory Action Required: All applicants whose trademark applications were published in the Industrial Property Bulletin before December 1, 2025, and which have completed the opposition period without facing opposition, must submit a formal application for issuance of the Registration Certificate within six months from December 1, 2025 (i.e., by May 31, 2026). The application must be accompanied by all required documents, including proof of payment of registration fees, power of attorney (if filed through an agent), and any other materials specifically requested by the Registry.

Consequence of Non-Compliance: If the application for issuance of the Registration Certificate is not submitted within the six-month deadline, the underlying trademark applications will be cancelled by the Registry. This cancellation will result in the loss of the application's priority date and all rights associated with the pending application. Applicants who fail to meet this deadline will be required to file entirely new applications if they wish to pursue trademark protection, and such new applications will be subject to the priority dates of any intervening applications or registrations for similar marks.

Legal and Procedural Implications

The December 1, 2025 notice represents an extraordinary administrative measure prompted by exceptional circumstances. The Department's decision to impose strict compliance deadlines reflects the need to reconstitute the official trademark record following the file destruction incident, while also addressing the longstanding problem of dormant applications that occupy the register without progressing toward registration. The automatic cancellation provisions serve multiple policy objectives: (i) clearing backlogs created by inactive applicants; (ii) ensuring that only applicants with genuine commercial interests maintain their applications; (iii) freeing up trademark availability for active commercial users; and (iv) facilitating administrative efficiency by removing files that have been pending without progress for extended periods.

Recommendations for Affected Parties

Trademark applicants and their legal representatives in Nepal should take immediate action to identify applications falling within the two categories specified in the notice. For applications pending due to incomplete documents for more than seven years, applicants should prioritize gathering all outstanding materials and filing comprehensive responses by February 28, 2026. For applications that have completed opposition periods, applicants should verify publication dates and opposition period expiry dates, and ensure that applications for registration certificates are filed well before the May 31, 2026 deadline. Given the strict and automatic nature of the cancellation provisions, compliance with these deadlines is essential to preserve trademark rights and avoid loss of priority dates.

Broader Context: Trademark Administration in Nepal

Nepal's trademark registration system operates under the Patent, Design and Trademark Act, 1965, and is administered by the Department of Industry under the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies. The system has historically relied on paper-based filing and record-keeping, making it vulnerable to the type of physical file destruction experienced during the September 2025 civil unrest. The Department's response to this crisis—imposing strict compliance deadlines and establishing automatic cancellation mechanisms—reflects both the immediate need to address the documentary gaps created by file destruction and the longer-term policy goal of modernizing trademark administration by eliminating inactive applications and encouraging digitalization of records.

International and Regional Implications

For foreign trademark owners and international businesses with pending applications in Nepal, the December 1, 2025 notice requires urgent attention. Many multinational corporations maintain defensive trademark portfolios in Nepal as part of broader South Asian regional strategies. Failure to comply with the February 28, 2026 and May 31, 2026 deadlines could result in loss of trademark rights in the Nepalese market, creating opportunities for bad-faith applicants to register identical or similar marks. International applicants are advised to coordinate with local Nepalese trademark agents to ensure compliance with the notice requirements and to verify the status of all pending applications in light of the file destruction incident.

Significance

The December 1, 2025 notice by Nepal's Department of Industry represents a watershed moment in the country's trademark administration, prompted by the extraordinary circumstances of the September 2025 civil unrest and file destruction incident. The imposition of strict compliance deadlines—February 28, 2026 for incomplete applications pending over seven years, and May 31, 2026 for applications completing opposition periods—coupled with automatic cancellation provisions, reflects a decisive administrative response aimed at reconstituting official records while simultaneously addressing longstanding backlog issues. The establishment of a prospective seven-year abandonment rule signals a permanent policy shift toward more rigorous application management. This development has significant implications for domestic and international trademark applicants, requiring immediate action to preserve rights and avoid automatic cancellation. The notice also highlights the vulnerabilities of paper-based trademark administration systems and may accelerate Nepal's transition toward digital record-keeping and modernized trademark examination procedures. For the broader South Asian intellectual property landscape, Nepal's response provides a case study in how trademark offices can address extraordinary disruptions while implementing structural reforms to improve administrative efficiency and reduce application backlogs.