The Madrid Protocol will enter into force in Saudi Arabia on 8 October 2026, after the country deposited its instrument of accession on 8 July.

With this development, the Madrid System has 117 members and covers 133 countries, including five of the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries (Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

The instrument of accession was accompanied by:

• the declaration referred to in Article 5(2)(b) and (c) of the Madrid Protocol, whereby the time limit of one year to notify a provisional refusal of protection is replaced by 18 months, and a provisional refusal resulting from an opposition may be notified after the expiry of this time limit;
• the declaration referred to in Article 8(7)(a) of the Madrid Protocol, whereby Saudi Arabia wants to receive an individual fee when it is designated in an international application, in a designation subsequent to an international registration and in respect of the renewal of an international registration where Saudi Arabia has been designated, instead of a share in the revenue produced by the supplementary and complementary fees;
• the notification under Rule 27bis(6) of the Regulations under the Madrid Protocol, whereby the Office of Saudi Arabia will not present to the International Bureau of WIPO requests for the division of an international registration in respect of Saudi Arabia because its law does not provide for the division of registrations of a mark; and
• the notification under Rule 27ter(2)(b) of the Regulations under the Madrid Protocol, whereby the Office of Saudi Arabia will not present to the International Bureau of WIPO requests for the merger of international registrations resulting from division because the law of Saudi Arabia does not provide for the merger of registrations of a mark

The amounts of the individual fee under Article 8(7)(a) will be notified separately.

Read more in the announcement on WIPO’s website.

Map of Saudi Arabia created by Norman Einstein and licensed under Creative Commons 

Counterfeit goods worth more than €17 million have been seized during Joint Action Day (JAD) Pirates 4.

The international operation was led by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in cooperation with EUIPO, Europol, EU Member States and non-EU countries.

It targeted criminal networks involved in the trade of counterfeit goods with coordinated checks at border crossings, ports, airports and logistics hubs across the EU, Serbia, Ukraine and the UK.

More than 1.7 million counterfeit and undeclared items were seized, including counterfeit toys, clothing, perfumes, jewellery, watches, mobile phones, pharmaceuticals, detergents, e-cigarettes, tobacco products, electronics and vehicle parts.

Fake clothing products accounted for over 0.5 million items seized, worth over €9 million in total. At Kapitan Andreevo in Bulgaria, 41,280 counterfeit Nike-branded textile garments were seized in an HGV coming from Türkiye. They included fake Croatian football team shirts.

Over 100,000 counterfeit cosmetics and perfume items were seized, with an estimated value of more than €1 million. €34,700 worth of fake perfumes were seized at the Polish-Ukrainian border in Smilnytsia, Ukraine

A sea container containing 83,738 counterfeit perfumes and cosmetics was discovered at the port of Naples. Counterfeit cosmetic products, including 2,880 Burberry lipsticks and 1,440 Christian Dior lipstick sets, with an estimated market value of €374,400, were found in a random inspection of a sea container at the port of Hamburg Customs office.

Almost 1000,000 toys were seized, with a value of more than €600,000. In Spain, almost 2,000 items were seized in Leganés (Madrid) from China, while Portugal intercepted more than 28,000 fake Monopoly board games in a sea container from China at the Port of Sines.

243,860 cans of fake energy drinks were seized. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and the UK reported seizures of fake non-alcoholic beverages (Red Bull) with identical packaging. One container was detected and seized at the port of Burgas, a second was detected near London, and the third place of detection was a shop in the Czech city of Brno.

Read more about the JAD Pirates 4 on the EUIPO website here. Photos by Frontex/EUIPO

The latest episode of the Talking MARQUES podcast previews the 40^th Annual Conference, which takes place in Lisbon, Portugal from 22 to 25 September 2026.

Three member of the MARQUES Programming Team take part in the podcast: Chair Claire Lehr of Edwin Coe LLP, Claus Eckhartt of Bardehle Pagenberg and Bahia Alyafi of Alyafi IP Group.

They mention some of the plenary sessions they are particularly looking forward to, and provide some insights into those they are taking part in themselves.

They also discuss the range of workshops available, some of the notable speakers at this year’s Annual Conference and a few of the social activities.

Finally, they highlight something that’s special about this year’s Annual Conference.

The podcast is recommended for anyone who has already registered for the Annual Conference and wants to find out more about the programme, as well as those who have yet to book their place.

You can listen to the podcast on the MARQUES website here and on Spotify.

So far, more than 840 people from 73 countries have registered for the Annual Conference and it is nearly sold out. If you have not yet booked your place, do so on the MARQUES website soon!

Mutlu Yıldırım Köse and İrem Girenes Yücesoy report on a recent decision of the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office.

Trade mark squatting has unfortunately become increasingly common in Türkiye in recent years. Bad-faith applicants often identify trade marks that are registered and genuinely used abroad but have not yet been registered in Türkiye, file applications for those marks in their own names and then attempt to sell the registrations or present themselves as the rightful proprietors of the trade marks. In another common scenario, bad-faith applicants use the registrations they have unfairly obtained to prevent the real right owners from entering the Turkish market.

Fortunately, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office continues to adopt a broad and rights-holder-friendly approach when assessing bad faith in oppositions filed against trade mark applications that are identical to distinctive trade marks registered and used abroad.

The absence of prior registration or use of a mark in Türkiye does not, by itself, prevent a finding of bad faith. In the oppositions filed against trade mark applications that are identical to a distinctive trade mark registered and used abroad and are of such a nature that it could not reasonably have been created coincidentally, the Office may accept bad faith even in the absence of any concrete evidence demonstrating the bad faith of the applicant, solely on the basis that the trade mark registered and used abroad has been copied identically.

TM application 2025/043581	Lala Berlin fashion brand

Lala Berlin case

A very recent decision of the Office (E-71248886-130-260172511, dated 6 March 2026) confirms this approach. In this case, a trade mark application numbered 2025/043581 was filed before the Office for a mark that was identical, both in its word form and in its distinctive stylised form, to an originally created Berlin-based fashion brand.

Although the Lala Berlin trade mark enjoyed extensive international protection through registrations obtained in numerous countries and widespread use abroad, it had been neither registered nor used in Türkiye as of the date on which the dispute arose.

Apart from the fact that the trade mark application in question was an identical reproduction of the earlier trade mark, there was no additional evidence specifically demonstrating the applicant’s bad faith.

What was, however, beyond dispute was that the subject application is identical to the Lala Berlin trade mark and enjoyed protection through international trade mark registrations and extensive use in the apparel and fashion industry abroad.

In this respect, the opposition relied not only on the genuine right ownership on the trade mark but also on the fact that the application constitutes a deliberate reproduction of the trade mark registered and used abroad, extending from the identical word element to its stylisation and positioning.

It was argued that the filing of such an application for use in the very same field of business cannot reasonably be regarded as an act undertaken in good faith. It was further emphasised that, given the limitless freedom available in selecting a trade mark, the adoption of the identical wording and an identical overall composition can hardly be explained as a mere coincidence.

Following its examination under Article 6/9 of the Industrial Property Code no 6769, the Trademarks Directorate of the Office concluded that the applicant had "failed to act in accordance with the principles of honest commercial practices with the intention of knowingly obtaining an unfair advantage" and accordingly rejected the application in its entirety on the grounds of bad faith.

Clear and consistent approach

This decision demonstrates that the Office has adopted a clear and consistent approach in assessing bad faith in trade mark applications seeking to identically reproduce trade marks that are registered and used abroad but have not yet been registered or used in Türkiye.

Accordingly, whether or not a trade mark is registered in Türkiye, it is essential to monitor foreign trade mark portfolios, regularly review the Turkish Trademark Bulletin and file an opposition particularly on the ground of bad faith when an identical trade mark application is identified.

Otherwise, once such bad-faith applications proceed to registration, the rightful owner will be required to seek their invalidation through court proceedings before entering the Turkish market.

Mutlu Yıldırım Köse is a partner and İrem Girenes Yücesoy is a managing associate with Gün+ Partners in Turkey. Mutlu is a member of the MARQUES Cyberspace Team and İrem is a member of the Anti-Counterfeiting and Parallel Trade Team. The authors represented Copenhagen Studios GmbH, the owner of the Lala Berlin trade mark, in the opposition proceedings discussed in this article

Investment in intangible assets passed $10 trillion for the first time in 2025, according to the third edition of the World Intangible Investment Highlights, published by WIPO and Italy’s Luiss Business School (LBS).

According to the report, intangible investment grew 5.5% from 2020 to 2025, compared with 3.2% for tangible investment, and now accounts for nearly 13% of GDP across the 29 economies covered.

Investment trends

The 29 high- and middle-income economies represent about 57% of world GDP. The latest edition of the report adds estimates for Canada and the Philippines and updates the figures for Brazil, India and Japan.

Companies and government entities in the US invested nearly $5 trillion in intangibles in 2025. Those in Japan invested $810 billion (an increase of 4.8%) and those in Germany $695 billion.

The gap between the US and the next four economies combined has roughly doubled over the past decade.

In India and the Philippines, intangible investment grew 5.3% and 3.9% annually over the past decade respectively, demonstrating that intangible investment is growing beyond high-income countries.

In a statement, WIPO Director General Daren Tang said: “This record-breaking rise in intangible asset investment clearly shows that global economic value is shifting from physical assets to intangible assets. This cuts across both mature and emerging economies. This data shows that countries and businesses are increasingly turning to innovation, technology and creativity to drive growth. I hope that the report gives decision makers insights into these trends and help them put in place the right policies, practices and programs to support their innovators and creators.”

The report is produced under the WIPO–LBS Partnership on Intangible Assets in the Global Economy and was published during the WIPO General Assemblies in Geneva. A summary and video presenting the main findings can be viewed on WIPO’s website here.

WIPO-NGO Stakeholder Dialogue

MARQUES participated in the WIPO-NGO Stakeholder Dialogue that took place in Geneva on 10 July 2026, represented by MARQUES 2nd Vice-Chair Tapio Blanc of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG.

WIPO organised the WIPO-NGO Stakeholder Dialogue in the margin of the General Assemblies. It included 49 stakeholder participants from different areas and from all over the world. After the opening remarks by Director General Daren Tang, the meeting included a presentation by Assistant Director General Marco Aleman on the topic “IP & Innovation Ecosystems Sector” and a lively Q&A session. 

Tapio said: “This was a very productive meeting and a great opportunity to discuss current issues of interest to MARQUES members directly with WIPO officials. We look forward to continuing to work closely with WIPO on various projects over the coming year and even to strengthening our collaboration."

The 68^th Series of meetings of the Assemblies were held from 7 to 15 July. More details are available on WIPO’s website here.

Photo of Tapio Blanc at the WIPO-NGO Stakeholder Dialogue

There were 166,214 EU trade mark (EUTM) and EU design (EUD) applications during the first half of 2026, an increase of 4.7% on the same period in 2025.

The number of EUTM applications grew 8.4% to 104,263, surpassing the previous record set in 2021.

Filings from EU Member States grew by 14.6%, leading to the share of applications coming from the EU going up from 57.4% in 2025 to 60.7% in 2026.

The highest growth came from France (17.4%) followed by Germany (15.2%) and Poland (13.3%).

Filings from China fell 12.4% but the country remains the highest filer overall.

Meanwhile, there were 61,951 EUD applications during the half-year period, a decline of 1% compared to 2025.

Despite the overall decline in EUD applications, filings from EU Member States grew by 1.6%, led by growth in Spain (up 28%).

The first half of 2026 also saw the first applications for EU craft and industrial geographical indications (CIGIs).

Of the 81 CIGC applications filed so far, 42 have come from Portugal, 25 from France and 10 from Slovakia.

Read more about the half-year trends on the EUIPO website here, which includes charts including the one pictured above

In the first part of this article, Marion Heathcote, Chair of the MARQUES IP Emerging Issues Team, noted that the Team asked: if AI understands us better than we understand ourselves, why not let it handle our purchasing decisions entirely? What would this mean for trade mark law?

To answer those questions, we are reproducing the Team’s original 2022 draft article, penned by Michal Hasiow, on ‘Navigating the pitfalls of brand control in product and packaging personalisation’.

The previously published part 1 introduced the concept. In this second part, we look at how brands can retain (or regain) control.

Boundaries and safe words

While brands’ trust vis-a-vis their customers can lead to a richer customer experience, it should have its limits. Personalisation options can be kept in check by offering a curated catalogue of choices – allowing consumers to select from a predefined set of features. This approach, focusing on design elements such as colours, shapes or ribbons, significantly reduces risks. However, some combinations (such as national flag colours) may still spark controversy, depending on the context.

Allowing predefined texts, such as initials or short phrases, is generally low risk. But while these options seem safe, they still leave room for problematic combinations, such as “SS” or “KGB”. The real challenge arises with freely generated content, such as longer text or photos, which are harder to control and carry higher risks.

Automated filtering systems help screen inappropriate terms, but they come with technical limitations. Too much filtering can stifle creativity, while too little allows harmful content to slip through. Finding the right balance is essential to mitigate the risk of brand damage.

For instance, a customer from a major beverage brand would receive the following message when using their personalisation service:

“Oops! Looks like the name you requested is not an approved one. Names may not be approved if they're potentially offensive to other people, trademarked, or celebrity names. We've worked hard to get this list right, but sometimes we mess up. If you think this is an error, please contact our Customer Care team. Otherwise, please try again, keep it fun and in the spirit of sharing!”

The list includes ‘Hitler’ and ‘Stalin,’ but not ‘Mussolini’ or ‘Bin Laden’. Many sexist and racist terms are banned in English but may not be filtered in other languages, such as their Spanish equivalents. This raises the issue of how multinational brands can handle personalisation across different cultures with varying standards for offensive content.

And what about words that don't fit neatly into defined categories but could still be harmful, particularly if they express brand criticism? A famous footwear brand learned this lesson early in the personalisation era. When the brand refused a personalisation request based on a term “sweatshop”, the refusal sparked viral backlash. The ensuing controversy surrounding the brand’s decision to deny the request, along with the customer service exchanges, ended up damaging the brand’s reputation and compromising the entire personalisation service.

This highlights the delicate balance brands must strike: while controlling associations is important, refusal to personalise based on subjective reasoning can lead to accusations of censorship, as another tech company experienced when it blocked references to political speech in its engraving service.

These situations can easily escalate, proving that what seems like a harmless term may, in fact, have far-reaching consequences.

Terms and conditions

Being upfront about the terms and conditions for personalisation may not completely eliminate misuse, but it serves the important purpose of clarifying the brand owner’s intentions, which can be crucial if issues arise. These terms should include:

• the consumer warrants that they have the necessary permissions to place the personalisation order and authorise the operator to produce the item(s) on their behalf;
• the consumer is solely responsible for the submitted content and assumes all liability for any misuse or legal consequences;
• the consumer warrants that the submitted content does not infringe third-party rights, including copyright, trade mark, right of publicity or privacy, and will not libel or defame any third party;
• the operator reserves the right to refuse any content deemed offensive, inappropriate or explicit, with full discretion, and without obligation to provide an explanation.

In-store personalisation

One idea for brand owners to consider is to shift personalisation to the in-store experience, whenever possible. This approach allows the process to be more directly managed by personnel, offering a level of control that online platforms can't always provide.

In-store personalisation helps guard against the unpredictable "imaginativeness" that often accompanies anonymous online ordering, where the lack of direct oversight can lead to unintended or inappropriate content.

By guiding the personalisation process in person, brands can ensure a more positive experience, keeping it fun and engaging, rather than risking the creation of controversial or damaging products – such as a dictator’s face on a box of morning cereals. This extra step not only protects the brand but also ensures that customers enjoy a more tailored and controlled interaction with the brand.

Marion Heathcote is a Principal with Davies Collison Cave in Syndey, Australia and Chair of the MARQUES IP Emerging Issues Team