Australian Trade Mark Update: Key Changes to the Trade Mark Regulations for 2026

Jessica Bell, Associate, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

2026 begins with a number of changes to the Australian Trade Marks landscape, following the introduction of the Trade Marks Amendment (International Registrations, Hearings and Oppositions) Regulations 2025 (the IRHO Regulations).

The IRHO Regulations introduce a variety of procedural and technical updates to the Trade Mark Regulations 1995, including longer filing periods, partial replacement of protected international trade marks, and extended examination periods.

Divided into five comprehensive amendment schedules and two largely administrative schedules, the IRHO Regulations reflect recent changes to the Madrid Protocol administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Below, we summarise the key details of Schedules 1-5 and outline what they mean for Australian trade mark applicants and holders. Schedules 6 and 7 are primarily technical, covering minor adjustments and the timing of when each amendment takes effect – Schedules 1 and 5 took effect on 19 December 2025, while the changes set out in Schedules 2-4 and 6-7 were effective from 19 November 2025.

Privacy New Year’s Resolutions

By Gary A. Kibel of Davis+Gilbert LLP and Jeremy Merkel of Davis+Gilbert on January 21, 2026 Posted in Privacy Compliance, United States

Authors: Gary Kibel of Davis+Gilbert and Jeremy Merkel of Davis+Gilbert

The Bottom Line

Privacy compliance obligations continue to grow and expand, so businesses should revisit their privacy compliance programs regularly.

California has introduced even more unique privacy compliance obligations.

Kentucky, Indiana and Rhode Island join the fray of states with effective comprehensive consumer privacy laws on January 1, 2026.

The new year might mean the same to you, but for businesses, the turn of the calendar once again means a new set of privacy compliance obligations. 2026 brings new requirements in California, which has the most comprehensive regulatory framework and a stand-alone privacy regulatory agency, along with new state privacy laws in Kentucky, Indiana and Rhode Island taking effect.

Little At Sea Over Legacy Trademarks:

By James P. Flynn of Epstein Becker Green on January 15, 2026 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Copyright, Europe, United Kingdom, United States

Commodore, What Can You Learn From Drifters?

By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green

Trademark lawyers eventually learn a hard truth: brands often do not die; instead, they drift.

Sometimes they drift quietly into nostalgia. Sometimes they drift into the hands of the entrepreneurial and well-advised. Other times, they drift along unattended. Of course, sometimes, they drift straight into court.

Few issues in intellectual property law reveal the fault lines between legal formalism and cultural memory as sharply as disputes over legacy brands:

Brands that stand the test of time innovate to stay relevant and build upon the product imagery that first captured customers’ hearts. So-called legacy brands and their associated images include Timberland boots, the Burberry raincoat, Tiffany diamonds, and Levi’s jeans. Even Disney, whose fantasy characters remain central to the customer experience. Each consumer-facing brand expanded its appeal while staying true to its foundational equities. Conservative Burberry got sexy by putting its tartan pattern on bikinis. Tiffany signed Elsa Peretti to design more accessibly priced silver and gold jewelry that was still distinctively elegant. Traditional Disney acquired Pixar’s more modern storytelling. By definition, legacy brands can also survive a spate of bad management, bad economies, even bad luck — but not in perpetuity. 

Coming January 2026: The Nutrition Symbol That Could Change Canadian Grocery Carts

By Marie Lussier of Fogler Rubinoff LLP and Elizabeth Varkovetski of Fogler Rubinoff, LLC on December 19, 2025 Posted in Canada

Authors: Marie Lussier, Partner, and Elizabeth Varkovetski, Articling Student, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

Today, roughly 60% of the average Canadian family’s diet consists of prepackaged and processed foods. These are often high in saturated fat, sugars, and sodium and Health Canada has flagged those ingredients as major contributors to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
To combat these health risks and empower Canadians to make informed choices, Health Canada published the Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Nutrition Symbols, Other Labelling Provisions, Vitamin D and Hydrogenated Fats or Oils) on July 20th, 2022. The transitionary period allotted for in the amendments ends on December 31, 2025 and, at that time, important changes to Canadian food labelling requirements will occur.
In fact, as of January 1, 2026, most prepackaged foods that are high in saturated fat, sugars or sodium will be required to display a front-of-package nutrition symbol (the “Symbol”).

The recent expansion of patent elegibility for AI inventions before the USPTO

By James Muraff of McDonald Hopkins and Michael Centa of McDonald Hopkins on December 18, 2025 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Branding, Case Studies, Copyright, Patent Infringement, Patents, United States

Introduction

The new United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John A. Squires was sworn in on September 22, 2025 and wasted no time that week in expanding patent eligibility for AI related inventions. In particular, the new Director presided over the September 26 Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567. In its decision, the ARP begins explicitly steering USPTO claim interpretation policy under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a new direction that aims to reduce patent eligibility scrutiny and potentially minimize the now-classic hurdles associated with interpreting abstract ideas and practical implementations thereof under the established Alice/Mayo framework.

New presumptions in favour of CMOs Greek Copyright Law

By Kriton Metaxopoulos of A. & K. Metaxopoulos and Partners Law Firm on November 19, 2025 Posted in Case Studies, Copyright, Europe, Trademarks

By Kriton Metaxopoulos, Managing Partner, at A. & K. METAXOPOULOS AND PARTNERS LAW FIRM

Fairly recently, Greek Parliament passed a Bill introducing serious changes to the representation powers of Greek CMOs in an effort to strengthen their position in the Greek market. These changes seriously affect direct licensing in Greece and introduce rules that clearly favor Collective Management Organizations and limit the right of authors to individually exercise their rights.

Diss-cussing Defamation:

By James P. Flynn of Epstein Becker Green on November 12, 2025 Posted in Branding, Legislation, Protection & Enforcement

Creative Expression, Feuds, & Cross Words Across Borders

By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green

The legal intersection of music, poetry, and defamation presents a fascinating landscape where creativity collides with reputational interests. The recent decision in Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc.—filed by Canadian rapper Aubrey “Drake” Graham over the diss track Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar, a rapper who grew up in Compton, California—offers a contemporary lens on this tension. Yet, the legal questions it raises resonate globally, from India to the United Kingdom to the US, illustrating both the universality and jurisdiction-specific nuances of evaluating artistic speech in the defamation context.

What is a diss track?

My sense is that many of us have heard this term, and probably have heard specifically about the diss tracks in this feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar. Indeed, some of us are old enough to remember the earlier, more innocent times when Carly Simon’s You’re So Vain was considered a diss track of sorts, albeit with targets of disparagement that were a bit more ambiguous. But, in short, as one resource summarizes it, the definition of such a track is:

The DuPont Factors for Trademark Registration

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on October 29, 2025 Posted in Copyright, Trademarks, United States

By: Daniel H. Bliss

Suppose you have filed a trademark application to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods/services for your business. During examination of the trademark application, the United States Patent and Trademark Office initially refused registration because of an alleged likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. What are the DuPont factors, and can you argue them in an attempt to overcome the refusal? If you do argue some of the DuPont factors must you address the same scope of similarity for these factors in a likelihood of confusion analysis? The answer is YES.

In re du Pont de Nemours & Co. established the following factors for consideration to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion:

Australian Trade Mark Case Update: Lessons from Puma and Finish on Trade Mark Registrability and Opposition

By David Cinque and Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on October 9, 2025 Posted in Australia, Branding, Copyright, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks

David Cinque, Special Counsel – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

Jessica Bell, Associate – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

When it comes to trade mark protection and registrability, being a reputable market-leading brand is not enough to guarantee either the registration of a mark, or a successful opposition to the registration of a competing mark. Two recent decisions of the Australian Trade Marks Office (ATMO) highlight that the long-standing reputation of an established brand (and indeed a conceptually similar mark) is not enough for an opposition to succeed.

Further, relying too heavily on the shape and design of the underlying product itself in a mark can be fatal to an attempt to register that mark. Each of the Puma and Finish decisions, summarised below, illustrate these concepts respectively and the factors that the ATMO delegate is likely to consider when making its decision.

Navigating the New Frontier: The Rise of U.S. Trade Secret Litigation in a Globalized Economy

By Steve Hanle of Stradling Law, Jason Anderson of Stradling Law and Ahmad Takouche of Stradling Law on October 8, 2025 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Branding, Copyright, Legislation, Patents, Privacy Compliance, Protection & Enforcement, Trade Secret Protection, Trade Secrets, Trademarks, United States

For many lawyers practicing outside the United States, intellectual property protection and risk are most often associated with patents, trademarks and copyrights. Trade secrets are frequently treated as the forgotten stepchild—associated with employment law and contracts rather than as an independent body of law. But since the passage of the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016, trade secret issues and disputes have steadily increased, and are now increasingly impacting both foreign companies doing business in the U.S. and domestic companies doing business abroad.