The end of 2025 will mark the end of a post-Brexit rule that allowed trademark use in the UK to count in the EU, and vice versa. Elsewhere in 2026, India’s recent endorsement of an olfactory trademark is expected to invite challenge, the US plans to add to its examiner corps and in China, malicious filings will soon be penalized.
China is gearing up for a major trademark overhaul in 2026, putting bad-faith practices squarely in the crosshairs.— Increased fines, pressure —
A draft revision to the country’s Trademark Law, set for legislative review soon, targets mass filings with no intent to use, deceptive applications and registrations that harm public or private interests.
The proposed revision introduces a fine of up to 250,000 yuan ($35,400) for “malicious” trademark filings, a penalty absent from the current law, marking one of the strongest deterrents yet and supporting China’s broader push for high-quality development and a more credible trademark register.
Mandatory use requirements are also set to tighten, as China moves to clear out thousands of “registered but unused” marks that have long clogged the system. Trademark owners may face growing pressure to demonstrate genuine, continuous use under stricter evidentiary rules, a shift aimed at curbing both trademark hoarding and bad-faith squatting involving marks that mimic established brands.
In 2026, efforts to rein in misuse of the trademark system are also expected to intensify. The Chinese regulator has already raised the bar for non-use cancellation petitions, a mechanism sometimes exploited to harass trademark holders.
Challengers must now provide detailed investigation reports, conduct multi-platform searches with consecutive screenshots, and submit signed integrity pledges confirming the authenticity of their evidence (see here).
China is also tightening oversight of trademark intermediaries, with firms that facilitate trademark squatting or repeatedly file cancellation petitions for unfair-competition purposes facing potential contributory liability.
— India’s paradigmatic shift —
The acceptance of Sumitomo Rubber Industries’ trademark for a “floral fragrance/smell reminiscent of roses” marks a paradigm shift that will force Indian brands in 2026 to think beyond traditional visual identifiers.
It is the first clear signal that India is prepared to recognize scientifically anchored sensory marks, moving the trademark system into domains historically viewed as too subjective to regulate.
While the registration itself (see here) is groundbreaking, the true disruption will emerge in enforcement — an area poised to reshape litigation strategy, evidentiary standards and competitive behavior across industries.
The core challenge is that olfactory infringement cannot be assessed through ordinary consumer perception in the way logos or word marks are. Establishing confusion or similarity will require expert-driven methodologies: chemical analysis, gas chromatography comparisons, sensory evaluation panels, and the use of Sumitomo’s seven-dimensional olfactory vector as a reference benchmark.
Litigation will become longer, more technical and significantly more expensive, shifting it into a space where scientific evidence becomes as central as legal argumentation. For many businesses, the cost of proving or defending an olfactory claim may outweigh the marketing value of obtaining such a mark.
Because a scent must be “non-functional” to qualify for registration, courts will be asked to distinguish between fragrances used purely for branding and those that enhance performance or user experience.
This will be especially contentious in sectors such as wellness, cosmetics, food and therapeutics, where scent often intersects with utility. One can expect competitors to challenge registrations that appear to confer a de facto product advantage, making functionality disputes a defining feature of 2026 trademark litigation.
— Brexit trademarks deadline —
The new year also marks the end of the post-Brexit rule that allowed trademark use in the UK to count in the EU, and vice versa. From Jan. 1, only use within the relevant territory will matter, meaning that use in the UK will no longer support a European trademark, and use in the EU will no longer protect a UK trademark.
This shift will hit the millions of UK registrations that were automatically created from EU rights after Brexit. Any trademark that has not been genuinely used in its own territory since 2021 will become more exposed to cancellation for non-use and more difficult to assert in oppositions and infringement actions.
The pressure is particularly on for UK clone registrations that exist only on paper and for EU trademarks that have so far been used exclusively in the UK. Lawyers expect a spike in non-use actions and more aggressive clearance strategies at the UK's and EU's respective Intellectual Property offices.
Brand owners are reviewing their portfolios to identify which marks lack genuine use in the UK or EU. They may begin or increase use where commercially viable and gather evidence such as sales records, advertising materials or product packaging to substantiate use.
Where use cannot realistically be established before the deadline, companies may need to consider refiling or restructuring their protection strategies and avoiding the risk of “evergreening” through repeated reapplications.
— USPTO hiring spree —
The US Patent and Trademark Office in 2025 made significant strides in an ongoing effort to reduce backlog and pendency (see here) at the same time trademark quality experienced an upswing. That should continue in 2026, with the office recently confirming to MLex it will hire additional trademark examiners.
In the courtroom, US practitioners are watching with interest the US Supreme Court’s consideration of a challenge to the doctrine of foreign equivalents at their Jan. 6 conference (see here).
The new year also marks incorporation of classification changes to the 13th edition of the Nice Agreement — an international treaty that categorizes goods, in order to harmonize trademark registrations from one country to the next. In a final rule which takes effect Jan. 1, the USPTO will add “new goods to, or deletes existing goods from, eight class headings.”
Because misclassified goods face delays or even a refusal, brands should take care now to familiarize themselves with the updated classifications: some of the products impacted include eyeglasses, which move from Class 9 for optical apparatuses to Class 10 for medical/therapeutic apparatuses, and electric toothbrushes, which go from Class 10 to Class 21 for household utensils, grooming tools and small apparatuses.
Notably, there is no need to reclassify an existing registration. The updated framework will apply only to applications filed in the new year, the USPTO said.
— Japan’s holistic approach —
In trademarks and designs, there were two parallel shifts: courts consolidating a holistic, evidence-led approach to trademark similarity, and policymakers refitting the Design Act to protect virtual-only assets.
On the policy side, a design patent panel under the Japan Patent Office has been working toward a framework that treats “images depicting the shape of virtual goods” as protectable subject matter — practically, a way to secure design rights over 3D models and other on-screen objects used in games, metaverse spaces and apps. The target is the virtual object itself, expressed through its image, with minimum conditions: it must present a single three-dimensional form viewable from arbitrary angles, and it must have a recognizable “use and function” as a virtual good.
Enforcement is being mapped to digital distribution. Acts of “exploitation” would include creating the image, offering or providing it over networks, and transferring image-record media. The scheme also pulls in the programs that display the image (e.g., the 3D model), aligning with how images are traded and delivered. Deliberations are set to continue into 2026.
For trademarks, Japanese courts continue to downplay mechanical element-by-element comparisons in favor of overall impression and marketplace context, including how services relate to goods, which is a momentum evident in some recent rulings from the country's IP High Court.
Brand owners launching digital items under Japanese rules may look to coordinate trademark-design filings, maintain audit-ready inventories of 3D assets and clear virtual products not only for visual similarity but also for the item’s intended use and function.
— Food label scrutiny in UK —
The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Dairy UK v. Oatly will have significant ramifications for trademarks in food labeling. The UK’s dairy association has challenged Oatly’s registration of the trademark “post milk generation,” arguing that it could mislead consumers into thinking that the oat milk product in fact contains milk.
With the conclusion depending on judges’ interpretation of detailed EU law concerning the labelling of foodstuffs, the case is another reminder — if one were needed — that even post-Brexit, the UK’s trademark regime is tightly bound up with European concerns.
If Oatly is right in its argument on the consequences of an adverse judgment if Dairy UK are successful, then the limits on what can be included in food-related trademarks will be drastically expanded — to the extent, Oatly claims, of ruling out the use of the word ‘milk’ in all non-dairy products, even in products like oat milk where there is a general popular perception of how such products are labeled.
It will also answer interesting questions on the construction of designations: whether, as Oatly claims, a trademarked phrase should be considered as a whole or whether individual, ostensibly designating words can be picked out and objected to.
— With additional analysis by Xiaoqiong Gao and reporting by Freny Patel, Inbar Preiss, Toko Sekiguchi and Douglas Clarke-Williams.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.