Africa: New Industrial Property Code in Mozambique

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Africa: New Industrial Property Code in Mozambique

ip-code-mozambique-min-final.jpg

The Council of Ministers of Mozambique approved a new Mozambique Industrial Property Code on December 31 2015, which will come into force on March 31 2016, replacing the 2006 Industrial Property Code.

Differences between the 2006 IP Code and the new IP Code relate mainly to revised time periods, re-wording and clarification of certain sections, administrative and format revisions. A limited number of substantive legal changes have been made. Some of these changes are that the deadline within which to submit outstanding documents (such as powers of attorney) or to provide information to the Industrial Property Institute (IPI) upon request, has changed to 30 days – extended from 15 days. Furthermore, the deadline for appealing against the Director General's decision has been brought forward by 30 days.

An interesting development is that the new IP Code now provides for the provisional refusal of a patent, utility model or industrial design application by the Director General. In addition, the new IP Code makes provision for any person who feels that the grant of an industrial design or utility model would be detrimental to him is entitled to oppose the application.

With regard to trade marks, the new IP Code expands the comparison of marks upon examination to "related" or similar goods and services. Opposition deadlines have been brought forward by 30 days. Thus, oppositions must be lodged within 30 days of advertisement and a further extension for another 60 days is provided for.

An important development is that it is no longer essential to show that the declaration of intent to use a mark (DIU) should relate to all goods or services included in the registration. Furthermore, DIUs must now be lodged every five years, calculated from the original application date of the International Registration.

Finally, the IPI Bulletin will now be published monthly, instead of bi-monthly which will provide interested parties with a better opportunity to consider advertised marks for opposition purposes.

van-der-Merwe

Marco van der Merwe


Spoor & Fisher 

Building No. 13 

Highgrove Office Park 

Oak Avenue 

Centurion 

Pretoria, 0157 

Republic of South Africa

info@spoor.com 

www.spoor.com



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article