GLP.eu News - English https://www.glp.eu/rss/plain/en.php Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=326 Obligation to indicate the registration of the trademark We remind you that in Chile, if a registered trademark is used in trade, it should be visibly accompanied by one of the following indications: ▪ "Trademark" ▪ "M.R." ▪ "®" These indications make it possible to make third parties aware that the sign enjoys protection as a registered trademark. What are the consequences of not indicating? Failure to affix the aforementioned information does not affect the validity or effectiveness of the registration of the mark. However, their absence may have significant practical consequences in the event of infringement, as it could preclude the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for the infringement. Recommendations for trade mark owners It is recommended that companies using trademarks registered in Chile verify that the trademark is accompanied by one of the following indications: Trademark | M.R. | ® The adoption of this measure can help to strengthen the protection and enforcement tools available in the event of unauthorized use of the trademark. Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=325 Saudi Arabia will adhere to the Madrid Protocol from 8 October 2026, allowing trademark owners to extend the protection of their distinctive signs to the Saudi market through the Madrid System with significant savings in economic terms and simplification of filing procedures. What changes for trademark owners? As of October 8, 2026: ▪ it will be possible to designate Saudi Arabia in new international applications filed through the Madrid System; ▪ it will be possible to designate Saudi Arabia within the international trademarks already filed; ▪ it will no longer be necessary to proceed, in the first instance, with a separate national filing to obtain protection in the country. Main aspects of the new accession National Examination: Saudi Arabian designations will still be reviewed by the local Office according to Saudi national legislation. Provisional refusals may then be issued or oppositions may be filed by third parties. Deadline for provisional refusals: Saudi Arabia has declared an 18-month deadline to notify any provisional refusals of protection. Individual Fee: designations and renewals involving Saudi Arabia will be subject to the payment of an individual fee. Practical implications Companies interested in the Saudi market will be able to evaluate a centralized management of the protection of their trademarks, including Saudi Arabia among the designated countries as part of their international protection strategies. We remain available to evaluate the opportunities arising from this novelty and to provide assistance in defining trademark protection strategies in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=324 Where is Jersey located? The Bailiwick of Jersey is the largest of the Channel Islands, located between the United Kingdom and France, which has its own legal and administrative system. What changes? As of 1 August 2026, Jersey becomes an Autonomous Contracting Party to the Madrid Protocol. From that date, the designation of the United Kingdom (UK) in an international registration no longer automatically extends protection to Jersey. Those who wish to obtain protection also in Jersey must therefore expressly designate this territory, both at the time of filing the international application and through a subsequent designation. Main changes Separate designation: Jersey may be designated independently within the Madrid System, independently of the United Kingdom. Competent Office: The Jersey Registrar of Intellectual Property will act as the Office of the designated Contracting Party. Individual Fee: An individual fee will be applied for designations and renewals affecting Jersey. Declaration of Intent to Use: The designation of Jersey shall imply a declaration of intent to use the trademark, or to authorize its use, for the goods and services claimed. Transitional measures International registrations that: ▪ included a designation of the United Kingdom prior to 1 August 2026, and ▪ were still protected in the United Kingdom at that date, will continue to have effects in Jersey as well. WIPO will automatically register a corresponding designation of Jersey, which will subsequently operate independently of the UK designation. Practical implications: what to do ▪ Check if Jersey falls within the territories of commercial interest. ▪ Expressly consider the designation of Jersey in addition to that of the United Kingdom in future international applications. ▪ Review trademark protection strategies in the Channel Islands in the light of the new rules. We remain available to evaluate the correct management and enhancement of your brand portfolio. Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=323 In Italy, prior to the aforementioned ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, interim injunctions concerning intellectual property remained in effect and did not lose their effectiveness, even where neither party subsequently initiated ordinary proceedings to establish the infringement of the relevant right. This case was referred to the Court of Justice following an interim injunction issued by the Court of Rome in 2018 to protect the figurative trademark "Mò Mò". Following the ruling of the EU Court, injunctions and preliminary injunctions must cease to have effect where proceedings on the merits are not commenced within the mandatory statutory time limits—namely, 20 business days or 31 calendar days—unless otherwise ordered by the court. Now, this legislative change has a significant impact on the precautionary measures of the party benefiting from the preliminary injunction must take. The applicant must now decide whether to commence proceedings on the merits within the aforementioned time limit, without knowing whether the respondent will subsequently file a motion to set aside the injunction. Indeed, if the holder allows this deadline to expire, relying on the opposing party's inaction, the holder runs the risk that the respondent may wait until the peremptory time limit or filing the main action has expired and then file a motion to declare the injunction invalid within the following 30 days. Consequently, in most cases, the prudent course of action would be to commence proceedings on the merits without delay. The Italian legislature has accordingly amended the provisions governing industrial and intellectual property through Decree-Law No. 100/2026 of June 12, 2026. The newly amended Article 132 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled "Advance Application of Precautionary Measures and the Relationship Between Precautionary Proceedings and the Trial on the Merits", provides as follows (amendments highlighted in bold): 1. The measures referred to in Articles 126, 128, 129, 131, and 133 may also be granted during the patent or registration process, provided that the application has been made available to the public or to the persons to whom the application has been served. 2. If, in issuing the preliminary injunction, the judge does not specify the deadline by which the parties must commence the trial on the merits, the trial must be commenced within twenty business days or thirty-one calendar days, whichever is longer. The period begins to run from the date the order is issued if it was issued during a hearing or, otherwise, from the date of its service. If additional interim measures beyond those described in the petition were requested either together with or in addition to the latter, the time limit shall be calculated based on the order of the designated judge who also rules on such additional measures. 3. If the trial on the merits has not commenced within the mandatory time limit referred to in paragraph 2, or if it is subsequently discontinued, the interim order ceases to be effective. 4. The provisions set forth in paragraph 3 do not apply to emergency orders issued pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to other interim measures intended to anticipate the effects of the judgment on the merits. In such cases, either party may initiate proceedings on the merits. 5. In all preliminary injunction proceedings, the judge may order an expert opinion for the purpose of obtaining preliminary technical guidance. 5-bis. In all preliminary injunction proceedings concerning the unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets referred to in Article 98, the judge may, upon a party's motion, as an alternative to the application of preliminary injunction measures, authorize the interested party to continue using the trade secrets provided that the party posts adequate security to cover any damages suffered by the rightful owner. The disclosure to third parties of trade secrets whose use is authorized pursuant to the first sentence is prohibited. 5-ter. In ruling on applications for injunctive relief concerning the unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets referred to in Article 98, the court shall consider the circumstances set forth in Article 124, paragraph 6-bis. The court shall take these same circumstances into account when assessing the proportionality of the measures. 5-quater. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 4, if the interim measures adopted to protect trade secrets under Article 98 become ineffective, pursuant to paragraph 3, because the trial on the merits has not commenced within the mandatory time limit set forth in paragraph 2, or if they lose their effectiveness due to an act or omission by the petitioner, or if it is subsequently determined that the acquisition, use, or disclosure of the aforementioned trade secrets did not occur, the plaintiff shall be required to compensate for the damages caused by the measures adopted. Meanwhile, Article 162-bis, paragraph 4, of the Copyright Law now states that: If, when issuing the preliminary injunction, the judge does not specify the deadline by which the parties must commence the trial on the merits, the trial must be commenced within twenty business days or thirty-one calendar days, whichever is longer. The time limit referred to in paragraph 1 begins to run from the date the order is issued if it was issued during a hearing or, otherwise, from the date of its service. If the trial on the merits has not commenced within the mandatory time limit referred to in paragraph 1, or if it is discontinued after it has commenced, the preliminary injunction ceases to be effective. 4. With respect to emergency orders issued pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and other interim measures intended to anticipate the effects of the judgment on the merits—without prejudice to the parties' right to initiate proceedings on the merits—if such proceedings have not commenced within the mandatory time limit referred to in paragraph 1, or if they are discontinued after their commencement, the orders shall be declared ineffective if, within the mandatory period of thirty days from the expiration of the time limit set forth in paragraph 1 or from the termination of the proceedings on the merits, the party against whom the order was issued files a motion to declare the order ineffective. The Transitional Regime For measures issued before the entry into force of Decree-Law 100/2026, the transitional provisions allow the recipient of such measures to file an appeal for revocation or a declaration of invalidity as set forth in Article 669-novies of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely within 60 days. Taking into account the suspension of procedural time limits during the judicial recess, the deadline for filing appeals regarding measures issued before June 12, 2026, is due to expire on September 11, 2026. [Link] Contact us for further information: our professionals are at disposal to assist you in developing the best protection strategy in light of the new Regulation changes. Wed, 12 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=322 In 2025, the EUIPO reported a record number of over 130,000 design applications (50% of which were from outside the EU), confirming the growing strategic importance of this protection tool. The regulatory changes that came into force on 1 July 2026 make the system even more effective by, on the one hand, broadening the scope of protection and, on the other, making it easier to identify counterfeits. It is therefore essential for rights holders to understand the new opportunities introduced by the reform, so that they can devise increasingly effective strategies for protecting and capitalising on their ideas. In this article, we outline the regulatory changes: our professionals are at your disposal to help you identify the most suitable solutions for your best interests. 1. Increased number of figures in the representation The number of figures, or images, that may be used to represent the design to be protected has been increased from a maximum of 7 to 10, to better identify and protect the product's features. The increase in the number of images that can be registered makes it easier to identify the features that render the product novel and distinctive, specifying the details and making them more clearly visible. This extension of protection is confirmed by the new Regulation (Art. 18-bis EUDR), which states: ‘Apart from being shown visibly in an application for registration of an EU design, design features of a product do not need to be visible at any particular time or in any particular situation of use in order to benefit from design protection. An exception to that principle should apply to the design protection of component parts of a complex product that need to remain visible during normal use of that product'. 2. New rules for complex products and spare parts The rules governing complex products have been clarified, in particular those relating to components of complex products used solely for repair purposes (Art. 20-bis EUDR). A complex product is defined as ‘a product that is composed of multiple components which can be replaced, permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product'. In this case, design protection must not turn into a monopoly on the spare parts market when the part (‘must match') serves only to restore the original appearance of the complex product. The repair clause is, however, accompanied by an information obligation: manufacturers and sellers must clearly inform consumers of the commercial origin and the identity of the manufacturer of the part intended for repair. 3. Maximum limit for multiple designs Multiple designs may contain a maximum of 50 designs, thereby limiting the previous provision, which did not set a maximum limit. 4. New filing formats Filing may be carried out not only using the traditionally used static formats, but now also using three-dimensional (3D) files and video files. 5. Abolition of physical filing It is no longer possible to physically file the items to be protected. 6. Different product classes under a single application In multiple applications, it is no longer necessary to adhere to the Locarno classification, thus making it possible to file different products with different intended uses together. This change allows protection of the relevant products to be maintained at a significantly lower cost. 7. Introduction of the identification symbol Ⓓ Registered designs may be identified (Art. 26-bis EUDR) with Ⓓ. This indication is not mandatory but may be advantageous from a commercial perspective. 8. Protection extended to digital and virtual objects The scope of a registered design has been broadened so that this right applies not only to what can be represented in a physical object. Non-physical, virtual objects (digital environments, files, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), etc.) may also be protected. To this end, the definitions in Art. 3 EUDR have been expanded as follows: ‘Design' (Art. 3 (1) EUDR) now also includes animation, defined as the movement or transition of one or more features of the design, which may consist of a progressive modification of the visual elements, regardless of whether or not their original identity is retained. ‘Product' (Art. 3 (2) EUDR) now also includes non-physical elements; thus, a product is deemed to be any industrial or handicraft object, other than computer programmes, regardless of whether it is embodied in a material medium or expressed in an intangible form. 9. Strengthening protection against counterfeiting, including digital counterfeiting Protection for the owner, or assignee, of a registered design has been significantly strengthened, as Art. 19 EUDR now states that counterfeiting is not limited to the physical copying of a product but also includes its reproduction in files or software. In particular, unauthorised third parties will be prohibited from: ▪ manufacturing, offering, placing on the market or using a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied; ▪ importing, exporting or holding such products for commercial purposes; ▪ to create, download, copy, share or distribute media or software containing the design, where such activities are intended to enable the manufacture of products incorporating or utilising the design. This prohibition is subject to two exceptions (Art. 20 EUDR), which exclude an infringement: ▪ where the use of the design is made solely for the purpose of identifying or referring to a product as belonging to the holder of the design right; ▪ where the acts are carried out for the purposes of comment, criticism or parody, in order to safeguard the right to freedom of expression, provided that they fall within normal commercial practice and do not unduly prejudice the normal economic exploitation of the design. ▪ the transit through the territory of the Union of products suspected of being counterfeit, even where such goods are not intended to be released for free circulation on the internal market. 10. Relevance of first disclosure outside the European Union The first disclosure of a product outside the EU which is commercially introduced into the EU and which is eligible for protection by a registered design is considered valid and relevant for the purposes of assessing novelty and/or individual character, or as the starting point for protection of an unregistered design. 11. Update on renewal fees Filing fees remain unchanged, whilst renewal fees for each individual design have been increased in line with the five-year renewal period. 12. Priority for invalidity proceedings The EUIPO may rule on a priority basis where the proprietor of the contested design does not contest the grounds or requests put forward by the applicant for invalidity. This is significant from both a defensive and strategic perspective: on the one hand, it may speed up the cancellation of uncontested or manifestly vulnerable registrations; on the other, it requires proprietors to monitor EUIPO notifications closely and to respond promptly to applications for invalidity. 13. New name for the right The name of this right changes from ‘Community design' to ‘European Union design'. Existing applications and registrations automatically take on the new name. For details of all the amendments to the new EU Design Regulation, please refer to our [Link] previous insight. Thu, 30 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=321 In 1996, we registered glp.it, at a time when the commercial internet was still in its pioneering phase and its future impact on business was far from obvious. The decision reflected a conviction that has always guided GLP's approach to intellectual property: emerging technologies create new forms of value, and valuable assets should be recognised and protected early. From the very beginning, GLP understood that the internet would become much more than a technological innovation. It would create a new environment for communication, commerce and reputation, where names, brands and identities would acquire unprecedented visibility and strategic importance. Seen from this perspective, a domain name was never simply a technical address. It was a new type of intangible asset, closely connected with trademarks, corporate identity, commercial relationships and trust. The same vision guided GLP when the .eu domain was introduced. By securing glp.eu, the firm recognised the importance of a digital identity consistent with its European dimension and long-term development. Today, domain names remain an essential part of the intellectual property ecosystem. They require careful management, monitoring and protection, just like trademarks and other valuable intangible assets. The history of glp.it and glp.eu is ultimately not a story about websites. It is a story about recognising the value of new intangible assets before they become obvious to everyone else. And that principle continues to shape the way we look at innovation, technology and intellectual property today. Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=320 On 1 June 2026, the Republic of Moldova acceded to the European Patent Convention (EPC), becoming the 40th member state of the European Patent Organisation (EPO). This accession marks the completion of the integration process that began over thirty years ago and represents a further expansion of the area covered by the European patent system, which now extends to a total market of over 715 million people. What are the changes for applicants and holders of European patents? The main practical consequence concerns European patent applications filed from 1 June 2026 onwards. For such applications, Moldova is automatically included among the member states covered by the European procedure, without the need to rely on the mechanisms used in the past to obtain protection in the country. The benefits For companies, research centres and inventors, this change brings several benefits: ▪ access to protection in Moldova via the standard European patent route; ▪ less administrative complexity compared with the previous validation system; ▪ greater uniformity in the management of patent rights within the EPC area; ▪ an increase in the potential value of patent portfolios thanks to the extension of territorial coverage. Although Moldova is not yet part of the European Union, its economic and trade relations with the EU market are particularly close, and the EU has for years been the main outlet for Moldovan exports. The possibility of obtaining patent protection under the EPC system therefore enables innovative companies to more easily establish a presence in an emerging market that is increasingly integrated into the European economic landscape. Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=319 As is known, Palestine has two offices responsible for trademark protection within its territory: the West Bank office and the Gaza office, covering their respective geographic areas. The Gaza Trademark Office had been closed in 2023 due to well-known circumstances, but we have now been informed that the Gaza Trademark Office has partially resumed operations. Specifically, a window for filing oppositions has been opened: the deadline for filing oppositions against trademark applications published in Official Gazette No. 70 on August 15, 2023, has been extended to August 11, 2026. Given the short timeframe, we ask interested clients to contact us as soon as possible to discuss specific cases, bearing in mind that the office's operations are not fully automated—for instance, payments can only be made in cash (against a receipt). Similarly, it is also once again possible to file new trademark applications, official government fees remain unchanged. Tue, 16 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=318 Among the 222 consultancy firms featured in the [Link] Europe's Leading Patent Law Firms ranking, GLP has been recognised for the second year running in the top ‘Gold' tier across all six technical categories analysed for patent consultancy – the only Italian firm to achieve this. This recognition takes on even greater significance when viewed within the European context, where, in the 2025–2026 period, only eight firms achieved “Gold” status in all categories (Biotechnology, Food & Healthcare, Chemistry & Pharmacy, Electrical Engineering & Physics, IT & Software, Materials & Nanotechnology, Mechanical Engineering), thereby strengthening the Group's position at the very highest levels on an ongoing and comprehensive basis. For the GLP Group, this achievement is the result of the consistency demonstrated over the years by all its members, regardless of their position, in the pursuit of results that pave the way for further improvements, through commitment, sacrifice and critical thinking. With a nearly 60-year history, GLP assists clients operating across all major technology sectors, including many leaders in their respective markets at both national and international level, primarily in the consultancy and planning of industrial property rights protection, adopting a practical, international and up-to-date approach that is never biased. The GLP Group's statement “Being confirmed in the top Gold category across all categories for the second year running, and the results achieved previously represents a particularly significant achievement for GLP, because it demonstrates that the work we are carrying out internally and how this is implemented externally, as well as how it is constantly updated in light of the radical changes the industry must face and seek to anticipate, continues to find practical application and recognised value. Every industrial sector – the GLP Patent Group continues in unison – has its own technical specifications, but given how these are implemented by the companies operating within them, the different markets and the varying nature of competition, addressing the issue of patent protection in a different, essentially bespoke way is a necessity that we tackle with care, constant preparation and close collaboration with the client.” A confirmation of the firm's leadership role Being ranked in the top ‘Gold' category for the second consecutive year across all patent technical fields (Biotechnology, Food & Healthcare, Chemistry & Pharmacy, Electrical Engineering & Physics, IT & Software, Materials & Nanotechnology, Mechanical Engineering) further strengthens GLP's position amongst Europe's leading intellectual property firms. The 2026 result, achieved following a comparison of 222 European firms, consolidates a path of growth and consistency that demonstrates the Group's ability to operate with a high level of technical specialisation, a multidisciplinary approach and an international outlook within a constantly evolving landscape. In this ranking, GLP stands out as one of only eight European consultancy firms – and the only Italian firm – to have achieved the highest accolade in both 2025 and 2026, which further honours the result achieved, making it available to all in order to provide the industrial sector – the true driving force behind the national economy – with operational assets of the highest calibre. We would like to thank all our Clients and Partners for the trust they place in us every day and for recommending our services, thereby further consolidating our reputation as a leading European partner for intellectual property. Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.glp.eu/en/update/news/?id=317 For the twelfth year in a row, GLP has been recognised by IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Professionals, the international guide dedicated to the top firms and professionals in patent law. In the 2026 edition, IAM describes GLP as a “competitive, internationally focused and deeply experienced” IP boutique, with more than 50 years in the market and a full-service patent practice covering strategy, filing, prosecution and portfolio management at national, European and international level. This year's result is particularly relevant because GLP is also included for the first time in the European Patent Office ranking, in a context where European patent filings reached a record 201,974 applications in 2025 and where AI, digital communication, 6G, quantum technologies, energy and battery innovation are reshaping the patent landscape. The recognition confirms the strength of GLP's patent team, led by managing partners Davide Luigi Petraz and Daniele Giovanni Petraz, whose strategic approach, technical expertise and responsiveness are consistently valued by clients. The ranking also highlights Lorenzo Fabro, head of the patent department, European, Italian and San Marino patent attorney, with strong expertise in drafting, prosecution, opposition proceedings, infringement and validity matters across different technologies. We'd like to thank out Clients and Partners for their continued trust and congratulate the whole GLP team for achieving this recognition for the twelfth consecutive year.