DashboardActivate Briefly
Legal Intelligence · Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property legal & regulatory updates

Briefly tracks intellectual property developments — court rulings, legislation, gazette notices, and regulatory updates — from courts and regulators. 57 updates tracked in the past 30 days, last updated 16 Sept.

Get Intellectual Property updates in your inbox
Legal News
United States
Case Law

Ninth Circuit: Affirms DMCA Copilot Copyright Appeal Dismissal

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims against GitHub Copilot and OpenAI Codex. The court ruled that DMCA 1202 does not apply when AI tools create new works that never contained copyright management information, rather than altering existing works.

16 Sept
Nigeria
Legal News

IGP Disu: Proposes Creative Economy Police Desk for Nigeria

Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Olatunji Rilwan Disu of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has proposed the establishment of an 'Orange Economy Security and Intellectual Property Coordination Desk' within an appropriate existing structure of the NPF, aiming to bolster the protection of Nigeria’s rapidly expanding creative economy. This initiative, reported by Vanguard Nigeria, signifies a strategic recognition by law enforcement of the economic importance and unique vulnerabilities of the creative sector. This proposal carries substantial legal significance for Nigeria's burgeoning creative industry, often referred to as the 'Orange Economy,' which encompasses sectors such as music, film, literature, and digital content. The creation of a dedicated police desk indicates a specialized approach to tackling intellectual property (IP) infringement, piracy, and other related crimes that have historically plagued the sector. For legal practitioners, this could lead to more effective and streamlined enforcement of IP rights, potentially reducing the reliance on often lengthy and costly civil litigation. It suggests a commitment to developing specialized expertise within the police force to investigate and prosecute IP-related offenses, which are often complex and require specific knowledge. This initiative is expected to foster greater confidence among creators, investors, and stakeholders, encouraging further growth, formalization, and monetization within the creative economy. The legal context for this proposed desk is grounded in Nigeria's intellectual property statutes, primarily the Copyright Act, 2022; the Patents and Designs Act, Cap P2, LFN 2004; and the Trademarks Act, Cap T13, LFN 2004. While the Nigeria Police Force already possesses the mandate to enforce criminal laws, a dedicated unit would enhance its capacity to address the specific nuances of IP crimes. This move aligns with international best practices where law enforcement agencies establish specialized units to combat complex economic crimes and IP theft, thereby bridging the gap between statutory protections and practical enforcement. The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) is a key regulatory and enforcement body for copyright, and the proposed police desk would likely collaborate closely with the NCC to ensure comprehensive protection. Key parties involved in this development include the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Olatunji Rilwan Disu, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), and the diverse stakeholders within Nigeria's creative economy, including artists, producers, publishers, and technology companies. The Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) is also a crucial entity whose functions would likely intersect with the proposed desk. For practitioners, the takeaway is to closely monitor the actual establishment and operationalization of this Orange Economy Security and Intellectual Property Coordination Desk. Attorneys advising clients in the creative industry should understand its scope, jurisdiction, and how it will integrate with existing IP enforcement mechanisms. They should be prepared to leverage this new police unit for clients facing issues of piracy, counterfeiting, and other IP infringements, advising them on the appropriate procedures for reporting such crimes and collaborating effectively with law enforcement. This initiative underscores the growing importance of intellectual property law in Nigeria and the need for legal professionals to remain abreast of evolving enforcement strategies.

16 Sept
United States
Case Law

Mammoth Hockey 10th Circuit Injunction: Appeal Heard

In 2025, the Portland, Oregon-based company Mammoth Hockey appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, seeking to block the Utah Mammoth hockey team from selling bags under the same name, following a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction. This legal dispute arose after Mammoth Hockey, claiming ownership of a senior mark, sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Utah Mammoth hockey team in June 2025. The hockey team, which had announced its name in May 2025 after abandoning an initial choice of "Yeti" due to potential trademark conflicts, began marketing bags alongside other merchandise. In response, the Utah Mammoth, represented by its parent company Uyte LLC and attorney Bruce Ewing, sued Mammoth Hockey to protect its new name, arguing that the term "mammoth" is widely used by various third parties, including other sports teams and bagmakers. On December 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge David Barlow denied Mammoth Hockey’s motion for a preliminary injunction, prompting the current appeal to the 10th Circuit. This case carries significant implications for trademark law, particularly concerning the likelihood of confusion between marks used on related goods and the scope of protection afforded to senior mark holders. It highlights the challenges businesses face when adopting names that, while seemingly generic or widely used, may overlap with existing trademarks, especially when expanding into new product categories. The outcome of this appeal will provide crucial guidance on how courts balance the rights of established brand owners against new market entrants, particularly regarding brand extensions into merchandise that might directly compete with an existing mark. For businesses, it underscores the critical importance of thorough trademark clearance and the potential for protracted and costly litigation even when a name is perceived as common. The legal context for this dispute is primarily federal trademark law, specifically the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), which governs trademark infringement and unfair competition. Key legal principles at play include the standard for demonstrating a "likelihood of confusion" between marks, the concept of a "senior mark," and the stringent requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must typically demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of equities favors the movant, and that the injunction is in the public interest. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is tasked with reviewing the district court's application of these standards. The case also touches upon the doctrine of "natural expansion" of a brand, as the hockey team's foray into selling bags directly competes with the bagmaker. Attorneys advising clients on intellectual property and branding strategies should closely monitor the 10th Circuit's decision in this matter. This case serves as a potent reminder of the necessity for comprehensive trademark searches and clearance processes, even for terms that appear to be generic or widely adopted. Businesses, particularly those in sports, entertainment, or other industries that frequently license or sell merchandise, must be acutely aware that expanding into new product lines can trigger trademark disputes with entities in seemingly unrelated sectors if there is a likelihood of confusion or if the new product falls within the natural zone of expansion of an existing mark. Clients should be proactively advised on robust trademark registration strategies and careful consideration of brand extensions to mitigate such litigation risks.

16 Sept
South Africa
Legal News

South Africa: Timely Company Name Objections Prevent Trademark Disputes

South African law allows trademark owners to object to infringing company names even before a business begins trading. The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) registers company names based on availability, not necessarily distinctiveness from existing trademarks.

16 Sept
Australia
Legal News

Simone Blackadder: AI Copyright Australia Faces Training Data, Ownership Issues

Simone Blackadder, a Baker McKenzie special counsel, highlights the growing demand for AI and cloud services in Australia, creating complex legal challenges. She identifies three core AI copyright issues: the use of copyrighted material for AI training, the ownership of AI-generated content, and tra

16 Sept
European Union
Legal News

ERA: Shifting Borders EU IP Conference Unveils 2026 Details

The European Academy of Law (ERA) is hosting an online conference titled "Shifting Borders in EU Industrial Property Law.". The event is scheduled for November 5 and 6, 2026, taking place during the mornings in the CET time zone.

15 Sept
Canada
Legal News

Canada AI Legal Competitiveness Roundtable: Leaders Discuss Strategy

In July 2026, Canadian Lawyer's Leaders Network convened an in-house roundtable in Canada, bringing together legal leaders from the technology industry to discuss the nation's competitive position, particularly concerning artificial intelligence. This inaugural event gathered prominent in-house counsel from companies like Jobber, Samsung Electronics, Coinbase, and Cohere, moderated by Tim Wilbur, Managing Editor of Canadian Lawyer. The discussions delved into critical aspects of the Canadian tech landscape, including the development of national AI champions, talent acquisition, compute and infrastructure needs, data sovereignty, the strategic 'build vs. buy' dilemma, and robust intellectual property protection. A central theme explored was the challenge of balancing foreign capital and infrastructure reliance with maintaining Canadian control and independence, with one participant advocating for strategic contractual provisions to anchor data and IP rights within Canada, irrespective of capital origin. This roundtable holds significant legal implications for practitioners advising Canadian tech companies, especially those operating in the rapidly evolving AI sector. The emphasis on data sovereignty highlights the increasing regulatory scrutiny and public concern over data residency and control, necessitating careful consideration of data governance frameworks and cross-border data transfer agreements. The discussion around IP protection underscores the critical need for sophisticated strategies to safeguard proprietary technology and innovations, particularly when engaging in international collaborations or relying on foreign infrastructure. Furthermore, the 'build vs. buy' debate touches upon complex corporate transaction laws, competition law considerations, and the legal due diligence required for strategic partnerships or acquisitions. The insights shared by these in-house leaders provide a valuable barometer for the legal challenges and opportunities facing the Canadian tech industry. The legal context for these discussions is multifaceted, drawing upon various Canadian statutes and regulatory frameworks. Data sovereignty concerns are rooted in privacy legislation such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and provincial equivalents, alongside potential future data residency requirements or national security considerations. Intellectual property protection is governed by Canadian statutes like the Copyright Act, Patent Act, and Trademarks Act, as well as international treaties. The broader policy discussion regarding government support for Canadian tech companies implicitly references potential legislative initiatives, investment screening under the Investment Canada Act, and emerging regulatory frameworks for AI, such as the proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) within Bill C-27. The interplay between these legal domains shapes the environment in which Canadian tech companies must operate and compete globally. Key parties involved in this significant discussion included the host, Canadian Lawyer's Leaders Network, and the participating in-house legal leaders from prominent tech firms such as Jobber, Samsung Electronics, Coinbase, and Cohere. While the Canadian government was not a direct participant in the roundtable, its role as a regulator and policy-maker was a central theme in the discussions regarding ensuring Canadian companies' success. The insights shared by these legal professionals reflect the practical challenges and strategic considerations faced by companies at the forefront of technological innovation in Canada. Practitioners advising Canadian tech companies should closely monitor developments in data sovereignty laws and regulations, both domestically and internationally, ensuring that contractual agreements adequately address data residency, access, and control. A proactive approach to intellectual property strategy, including robust protection mechanisms and careful negotiation of IP ownership and licensing in global partnerships, is paramount. Attorneys should also stay informed about the progress of proposed AI legislation, such as AIDA, and other government initiatives aimed at fostering the Canadian tech ecosystem, as these will directly impact compliance obligations and strategic planning. The insights from this roundtable underscore the necessity for legal counsel to be not just reactive, but strategic partners in navigating the complex legal and business landscape of the global technology sector.

15 Sept
Ghana
Legal News

GHIPO: Initiates Akpeteshie GI Protection for Ghanaian Spirit

The Ghana Industrial Property Office (GHIPO) is actively pursuing Geographical Indication (GI) protection for Akpeteshie, Ghana's traditional spirit, to safeguard its identity and enhance its international market competitiveness. This initiative, led by GHIPO under the Registrar-General’s Department, aims to secure formal GI status for Akpeteshie. The primary objectives are to protect the unique identity of the traditional spirit, prevent its imitation or misuse, and position it more effectively for global trade. By standardizing production processes among local producers and strengthening the Akpeteshie brand, Ghana seeks to unlock new export opportunities and leverage its cultural heritage for economic benefit. This development holds significant legal implications for intellectual property law in Ghana and for businesses involved in traditional products. GI protection provides a robust legal framework for products whose quality, reputation, or other characteristics are essentially attributable to their geographical origin. For practitioners, it highlights the growing importance of IP rights as a tool for economic development and brand differentiation. For producers, it offers enhanced market value, potential for premium pricing, and legal recourse against unauthorized use of the Akpeteshie name. The legal context for this endeavor is rooted in Ghana's intellectual property framework, particularly the Protection of Geographical Indications Act, 2003 (Act 660). This Act provides the domestic legal basis for the registration and protection of GIs, aligning Ghana with international obligations under agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement. GHIPO, as the national intellectual property office, is the key regulatory body responsible for administering these laws and facilitating the registration process. The key parties involved are GHIPO, the Registrar-General’s Department, and the numerous local producers of Akpeteshie who stand to benefit from this protection. Attorneys specializing in intellectual property, trade law, and food and beverage regulation should closely monitor the progress of this GI application. This initiative sets a precedent for other traditional Ghanaian products and underscores the strategic value of GIs. Practitioners should advise clients, particularly those in the agricultural and artisanal sectors, on the potential benefits of GI protection, the requirements for registration under Act 660, and the enforcement mechanisms available to protect their unique products in both domestic and international markets.

15 Sept
European Union
Legal News

EUIPO: FLOWERBX EU Trademark Descriptiveness Overturned

The EUIPO Board of Appeal reversed an examiner's decision, finding the stylized mark FLOWERBX not descriptive for floral goods and services. The mark covers natural flowers and plants, retail services for flowers, and floristry.

15 Sept

Intellectual Property coverage by jurisdiction

United StatesNigeriaSouth AfricaAustraliaSenegalGuineaEuropean UnionUgandaCanadaGhanaBurkina FasoIndiaNigerEthiopiaTogoZimbabweBotswana

Other topics

AI GovernanceAntitrust & CompetitionBanking & FinanceBankruptcy & RestructuringCompliance & RegulatoryContracts & CommercialCorporate GovernanceEmployment & LaborEnvironmental LawGeneral PracticeHealthcare & Life SciencesImmigrationInternational TradeLegal EducationLitigation & Dispute ResolutionMergers & AcquisitionsPrivacy & Data ProtectionReal EstateSecuritiesTax LawTechnology & LicensingFinancial ServicesTechnology & DigitalEnergy & UtilitiesHealthcare & PharmaReal Estate & ConstructionAgriculture & FoodMining & ExtractivesTrade & LogisticsEmployment & WorkforceMedia & TelecomsPublic SectorEnvironment & ClimateEducation