Intellectual Property Archives

The Copyright Act 1987 came into force 39 years ago, when the internet was still in its infancy. Successive amendments have not fully kept pace with technological change. On 14 July 2026, the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) published a public consultation paper proposing wide-ranging reforms, with feedback closing on 14 August 2026. The proposals respond to four pressures: generative AI at scale, global regulatory divergence, enforcement gaps and commercialisation blind spots.

1. AI Training and Copyright

Stakeholders have raised concerns over the use of copyright works, including news content, for AI training without permission or compensation. MyIPO poses an open question: should Malaysia adopt a purpose-based model (as in Japan, where the information analysis exception applies only where the use is not for enjoyment of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder), a lawful access model (as in Singapore, where the work must be lawfully accessed, for example purchased, licensed, subscribed to or open access), or a hybrid of the two?

2. Stronger Digital Enforcement

TPM and RMI: a broader definition of technological protection measures, prohibitions on circumvention and on removing or altering rights management information, and liability for tools designed for either, in line with Articles 18.68 and 18.69 of the CPTPP.
Dynamic injunctions: one court order capable of covering mirror, clone or successor sites, without returning to court each time a domain changes.
Service provider accountability: a proposed expedited notice-and-takedown timeframe of 12 hours, with safe harbour contingent on timely and appropriate action.
Domain name seizure: explicit powers to seize and forfeit domain names used for infringement.

3. Commercialisation and Governance

Artist’s Resale Right: a royalty for creators each time an original artwork is resold through an auction house, gallery or dealer, a right adopted in more than 90 countries.
Orphan works: an EU-style regime allowing archives, libraries, universities and digital repositories to digitise and share works for non-commercial purposes after a diligent search.
Other proposals: stronger oversight of collective management organisations, Copyright Tribunal jurisdiction over royalty disputes without mutual consent, a modernised Copyright Voluntary Notification (CVN) process, and a clearer boundary between copyright and industrial design.

Five Steps to Take Now

AI developers and adopters should map the sources of their training data and keep records of licences and access terms. Under a lawful access test, provenance may be decisive.
Platforms and ISPs should stress-test their takedown workflows against a 12-hour window, as safe harbour protection may depend on it.
Rights holders should embed TPM and RMI in their digital works, which the reforms are designed to give real force.
Galleries, auction houses and collectors should anticipate resale royalty obligations in pricing, consignment terms and sale documentation.

Content owners should file CVNs for key works and maintain clear chain-of-title records ahead of enhanced evidentiary recognition

Author:
Muhammad Akif bin Hashim, Associate
akif@ridzalaw.com.my
Mohamed Ridza & Co.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
https://www.ridzalaw.com.my/

The Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 (“Bill”) amends the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 (Cth) (“CTD Act”) and the Customs Regulation 2015[1] (“Customs Regulation”) and seeks to strengthen Australia’s response to the importation of counterfeit goods. The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 25 March 2026 and subsequently passed Parliament, receiving Royal Assent on 20 May 2026[2].

According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the purpose of these amendments is to strengthen enforcement against the importation of counterfeit goods by:

Creating a new strict liability offence under the CTD Act for importing goods that bear false trade marks (being an offence which imposes liability without the need for the prosecution to prove fault). The new provisions provide that a person can be punishable by a maximum penalty of 60 units[3]. At the time that the Explanatory Memorandum was prepared, one penalty unit was equal to $330 AUD[4] and so 60 penalty units was $19, 800. A body corporate however can be subject to a maximum pecuniary penalty of an amount 5 times higher[5] (being 300 penalty units- $99,000). For offences committed on or after 1 July 2026 however, one penalty unit is currently equal to $364 instead; and
Including the new offence in the Customs Infringement Notice Scheme, by amendment of the Customs Regulation, allowing the Comptroller-General of Customs and delegates in the Australian Border Force (“ABF”) to issue infringement notices as an alternative to prosecution for the offence[6].

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the the policy objective behind these amendments is as follows:

“The purpose of the amendments is to make counterfeit importers’ business model unprofitable, because the value of the seized goods, together with the amount of a penalty specified in an infringement notice, may exceed the profits realised from the consignments of infringing goods that escape detection.”[7]

The protection of intellectual property rights from the importation of counterfeit goods is regulated through legislation such as the CTD Act (which includes certain labelling requirements with respect to goods imported into Australia), the Trade Marks Act 1995 (“TM Act”) and the Copyright Act 1968 (“CA Act”) (both of which contain provisions dealing with importations of goods infringing intellectual property rights). For instance, under the TM Act a registered trade mark owner may give a notice in writing to the Comptroller- General of Customs objecting to the importation of goods that infringe its trade mark (“Notice of Objection”)[8] (similar provisions apply under the CA Act with respect to the rights of copyright owners), and the Comptroller- General of Customs may seize imported goods that infringe such intellectual property rights [9]. A Notice of Objection is valid for a period of 4 years, unless revoked [10]. The registered trade mark owner may also bring court proceedings for infringement of their intellectual property rights.

The Explanatory Memorandum further states as follows:

“The intellectual property rights holder remains responsible for any subsequent legal action against the importer under civil prosecution. Once the ABF refers the matter to the intellectual property rights holder, it no longer has authority to take action against the importer.

In the majority of cases where counterfeit and pirated goods are seized, the importer forfeits or abandons the goods. When this occurs, the Commonwealth is unable to pursue the importer through fines or prosecution. The only consequence to the importer is the financial loss of the value of the seized counterfeit goods. Access to the customs infringement notice scheme adds an added financial deterrent against the importation of counterfeit goods.”[11]

Accordingly, these amendments do not seek to alter or change the existing Notice of Objection process, rather they aim to complement the existing framework [12].

If you have any queries in relation to the above or the protection of your intellectual property rights including the lodgement of a Notice of Objection, then please contact Felicity Cara-Carson of our office.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Explanatory Memorandum to the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices)

Bill 2026, page 1.

[2] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7452 ;

The commencement date is specified to be the earlier of a proclaimed date or, failing that, within 6 months

beginning on the date of Royal Assent, commencing on the day after the end of that period.

[3] Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026; Section 4AA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

[4] Section 4AA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

[5] Section 4B(3) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

[6] Explanatory Memorandum to the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices)

Bill 2026, page 1.

[7] Explanatory Memorandum to the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices)

Bill 2026, page 4.

[8] Section 132 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)

[9] Section 133 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)

[10] Section 32 Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)

[11] Explanatory Memorandum to the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices)

Bill 2026, page 3.

[12] Ibid.

Author:
Felicity Cara-Carson
Pointon Partners
https://pointonpartners.com.au/
Felicity.Cara-Carson@pointonpartners.com.au
+61 (03) 8625 8926

Olshan Intellectual Property and Brand Management & Protection partner Barry Greenbaum published an article in Managing IP (subscription required) entitled “AI’s Growing Role in Trademark Naming and Clearance.” In the article, Barry discusses how generative AI is reshaping trademark practice across naming, clearance workflows, design mark analysis and USPTO examination, and what in-house teams must do to manage associated risks. He explains that while AI can significantly shorten early-stage naming and clearance timelines, it cannot replace human judgment in evaluating likelihood of confusion or broader legal risk. As Barry notes, “Teams that treat AI clearance output on the same level as a human-written legal opinion are taking on substantial, unnecessary risk.” The article also highlights recent USPTO AI-driven upgrades that are expected to contribute to a more rigorous examination environment and anticipates further developments including real-time clearance searching and constrained name generation. Barry concludes, “The questions that remain are whether the workflow is designed to catch what the tools inevitably miss, and whether legal is involved early enough to direct the process rather than just reviewing the results.”

Author:
Barry M. Greenbaum
Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP
bgreenbaum@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2291
www.olshanlaw.com
X: @OlshanLaw

Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) has quietly become one of the most consequential—and perilous—patent enforcement venues in the country. Federal lawsuits tied to APEX have surged more than 200% in three years, and a single misstep can turn a routine Amazon takedown into full federal litigation. This client alert, authored by Brand Management & Protection and Intellectual Property Law Practices partner Barry Greenbaum, breaks down the three pressure points that most often determine APEX outcomes before an evaluator ever rules: the single-claim format that makes claim selection make-or-break, the no-validity-challenge rule that allows weak patents to secure takedowns they might not withstand at the USPTO or in federal court, and the growing use of declaratory judgment actions following SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group. The client alert examines what is driving the surge in APEX-related enforcement and how both patent owners and sellers can navigate the procedural and strategic risks.

Author
Andrew Lustigman
Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP
alustigman@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2258
www.olshanlaw.com
X: @OlshanLaw

New York Law Journal (subscription required) and Attorney at Law Magazine have highlighted Barry Greenbaum, who has joined Olshan as a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Law and Brand Management & Protection Practices. Barry brings close to two decades of experience advising international technology companies and emerging growth clients on patent prosecution, IP transactions, trademarks and design, as well as privacy matters. His deep familiarity with emerging technologies—including artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous systems and vehicles, IoT ecosystems, robotics, advanced sensors, and data-driven infrastructure—positions him to counsel clients navigating rapidly evolving IP landscapes. Prior to joining Olshan, Barry served as Senior Counsel at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP in New York, where he managed worldwide IP prosecution strategies, coordinating filings across multiple jurisdictions. He has also advised on IP due diligence and evaluated IP assets for mergers and acquisitions and technology transactions, reviewed privacy and data considerations in connection with commercial agreements and provided litigation support for IP disputes through infringement and invalidity analyses, discovery responses, and technical summaries.

Author:
Barry M. Greenbaum, Partner
bgreenbaum@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2291

Andrew Lustigman, Chair of Olshan’s Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group, will deliver a presentation for an International Intellectual Property Society (IIPS) CLE webinar entitled “Your AI Made a Great Ad. Your Lawyer has Questions!” on May 20 from 10:00 A.M. – 11:00 A.M. EST. In the presentation, Andy will provide a concise framework for navigating the key issues surrounding the ways in which AI is transforming creative content production, particularly for advertising, including: how to properly disclose AI-generated content such as reviews, endorsements, or testimonials that the FTC may consider deceptive; navigating new state laws governing the use of AI-generated models and actors and appropriate disclosures; navigating Thaler v. Perlmutter requirement for human authorship as a bedrock requirement for copyright protection; practical risks AI-generated content poses for trademark, trade dress, and right-of-publicity claims; the USPTO’s revised November 2025 guidance treating AI as merely a tool for inventorship purposes and requiring human inventorship; and IP vulnerabilities and compliance strategies for clients using AI in advertising and creative workflows, spanning patent prosecution, copyright registration, and brand enforcement.

You can watch the CLE webinar here.

Author:
Andrew Lustigman
alustigman@olshanlaw.com
+1 212 451 2258