Understand trademark clearance, registration, use and portfolio decisions in the context of your products and markets.
A name or logo needs to be considered alongside the goods and services, markets and users it represents. Trademark planning connects searches, filing choices and the evidence needed to manage rights as a business grows.
Liangma Legalmark Trademark Team’s published services include strategy, registration and rights proceedings. This topic brings together reporting and practical articles; the right approach to a particular matter depends on the jurisdiction and facts.
Questions to consider
Which signs, goods and services matter to the business, and in which markets?
What do searches reveal, and what issues require a closer legal assessment?
How will use, changes, renewals and ownership records be managed?
An Administrative Panel of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has issued a decision (Case No. D2026-3708) in the complaint brought by The Village Company, LLC against the Chinese respondent Yang Lou, finding that the disputed domain name the-mrbubbles.com is confusingly similar to the MR. BUBBLE trademark, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and ordering that the domain name be transferred to the complainant. At the time of the decision, the domain name was still redirecting to a third-party website that misappropriates the MR. BUBBLE brand.
An Administrative Panel of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has ruled on the complaint filed by French retail chain E.Leclerc (Case No. D2026-3790), finding that leclerc-precommande-gta6.com is confusingly similar to the LECLERC trademark, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and has ordered its transfer to the complainant. The domain name was previously a website imitating the complainant's pre-order page; it is now inactive, but the Panel still found bad faith under the "passive holding" rule, which is unaffected.
From 2026 to 15, 10, 14, the Ninth World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Intellectual Property Judges Forum was held at the WIPO headquarters in Geneva and online, with over 970 registered judges, of whom 167 attended in person. Three of the nine sessions focused directly on artificial intelligence, respectively addressing AI-assisted and AI-generated outputs, the use of protected works in AI model training, and the use of AI in court proceedings; the remaining six sessions covered topics including software and digital technology patents, trademark fair use, platform and intermediary liability, and cross-border disputes.
The Administrative Panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center has issued a decision in the case brought by Voith GmbH & Co. KGaA against the domain name voiths.sbs (Case No. D2026-4018), finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VOITH trademark, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith; pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Paragraph 15 of the Rules of Procedure, it ordered the transfer of voiths.sbs to the complainant. The decision specifically records that the respondent not only copied the complainant's official website but also rewrote the references to static resources in the page code from the complainant's genuine host static.voith.com to a host under its own control, static.voiths.sbs; this technical modification was treated by the Panel as key evidence of "active, calculated impersonation."
The World Intellectual Property Organization will set up a booth at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington from 29 10, 2026 to 31, offering consultations on the Madrid and Hague systems, and will also hold a special workshop on the Madrid system. This article uses that occasion to explain: Madrid international registration is only one route to overseas trademark protection, and before choosing it, companies should first check three things — target markets, the basis of rights, and ongoing management.
On 2026 year 9 month 25 day, Provisional Measure No. 1.394/2026 prohibits nationwide the operation, offering, intermediation and advertising of fixed-odds betting in Brazil, and the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property subsequently stated that item 5.4.6 of the Trademark Manual will be revised after assessing the impact of the measure. This article is addressed to Chinese companies arranging sports-betting-related trademarks in Brazil, explaining that the current situation is a regulatory transition period rather than the arrival of a new examination standard, and setting out concrete preparation directions for checking application status, service-item wording and subsequent monitoring.
Brazil's INPI has announced that the priority examination quota for trademarks related to virtual marketplace platforms has been exhausted, and that other priority categories cannot be used instead. This article is addressed to Chinese outbound enterprises blocked because a platform requires proof of trademark registration; it explains the eligibility conditions for this channel, the requirement of subject consistency, the evidence needed in counterfeiting situations, and the matters that can be verified and prepared before the quota is restored.
Multi-class trademark filings at Chile's INAPI rose year on year to 18.17%, and the average examination period has shortened to 5.5 months; meanwhile, from 9 in 5, 2027, third parties may request cancellation of trademarks not genuinely used for five consecutive years. This article is for Chinese companies planning to enter or already positioned in the Chilean market, explaining the matters that should be verified first in filing strategy and use-evidence management, the applicable conditions, and the direction for next-step preparation.
Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office explained in the "Wulong Yuan" trademark revocation case that revocation is determined separately based on evidence of use for each designated good or service, not by cancelling everything. Starting from that case, this article explains how trademark owners should inventory evidence of use item by item, understand the scope of revocation, and adopt risk-prevention measures.
Using an WIPO domain name dispute decision as a sample, explain the three elements a brand owner must prove to claim transfer of a domain name in the situation of a similar domain name hosting a counterfeit website, the role of trademark registration and use evidence, the impact of the respondent's failure to respond and the domain name being deactivated on the findings, and the materials that outbound enterprises should first preserve when they discover a similar situation.
