OM Weekly Digest 12/05/22

omwd ft
madrid protocol

12/05/22 – Trademarks

The Colombian government has notified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) a declaration modifying the amounts of individual fee to be paid regarding Colombia according to Article 8.7 of the Madrid Protocol. The individual fees will increase by between 2-6 Swiss Francs for subsequent applications or appointments of International Trademark Registrations, and between 2-3 Swiss Francs for renovations.  

These modifications will apply when Colombia a) is designated in an international application received by the Office of origin on or after June 1, 2022; b) is the subject of a subsequent designation received by the Office of the Contracting Party of the holder on or after June 1, 2022, or is presented directly to the International Bureau of WIPO on or after that date; or c) has been designated in an international registration which is renewed on or after June 1, 2022.


12/05/22 – International Trade

On 5 May 2022, The People’s Republic of China (PCR) deposited a declaration of extension of the territorial application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) to Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region.   

Since 1988, the CISG applies to territory in Mainland China. However, with the declaration of extensión the CISG will also apply to parties that have their place of business located in Hong Kong. This decision strengthens China’s commercial relationships with States that are part of the CISG, such as Colombia.  

According to the information published by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Tourism, in 2021, China became first Asia’s inverstor in Colombia. With the declaration of extension, the parties will have a unified code of legal rules governing several aspects of their contracts of international sale of goods, simplifying comercial operations.    

The territorial application will take effect on 1 December 2022.


12/05/22 – Innovation

Last week, The UK’s High Court, recognized NFTs (non-fungible tokens) as property, separate from the underlying right they represent, capable of being frozen by way of an injunction.   

This decision sets an important precedent for NFTs regulation and enables litigants to bring the full power of courts to, for example, seize stolen assets or compel repayment.  

The ruling opens a debate about what owning an NFT implies. At this moment, the concept of NFTs as property is as abstract as a patent law, or an extension of Intellectual Property law, as NFTs are essentially ideas that have taken virtual form.    

Nevertheless, to some, an NFT doesn’t convey copyright, usage rights, moral rights, or any other rights at all, as these aspects are regulated separately in a written contract. However, according to the UK’s High Court an NFT owner has the right to transfer it, give it to someone else, exclude others from it, all of these considered as property attributes.