Libya introduces substantial trademark renewal fees for foreign applicants

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Libya introduces substantial trademark renewal fees for foreign applicants

Sponsored by

spoor-fisher-400px.png
Map of Libya.jpg

Jen Colantoni of Spoor & Fisher summarises Libya’s new $2,000 annual trademark renewal fee for foreign applicants and alerts brand owners to several strategic considerations

There has been an important development in Libya recently regarding trademark renewals, with the introduction of significant new fees for foreign applicants.

On renewal, foreign applicants now need to pay an official fee of $2,000 per annum. This payment can be made in one lump sum of $20,000 for the 10-year renewal period or in yearly instalments.

The authority for this development is Resolution No. 586 of 2024, dated November 27 2024, which was confirmed in a meeting involving Ministry of Economy and Trade officials on February 3 2025. The new fees apply to all renewals due after January 1 2025. At this stage, they are not being applied retrospectively.

The original notification also mentioned a requirement to submit a “financial statement” at the time of renewal. It is understood that this applies only to local applicants and is not a requirement for foreign applicants.

Once the initial renewal fee is paid, the renewal will be published, but it is not currently clear whether the new renewal fees include the publication fee or whether this will be a supplemental cost.

There is a grace period of six months for payment of the initial renewal fee and, if paid in instalments, the subsequent fees must be paid on or before the annual anniversary of the renewal date.

Considerations relating to the new scheme

There are frequent changes in leadership at the Libyan Trademarks Office, which often result in different practices.

The new fees have caused much concern among practitioners in the region and, while it is by no means certain, it remains a possibility that they may be revoked or revised. On this basis, the author recommends that for renewals that are not immediately due, applicants wait and see how things develop over the coming months. For renewals that are due immediately, or in the near future, clients may be wise to opt for yearly payments, because if the full fee has been paid and the requirement is subsequently revoked, it is unlikely that it would be possible to obtain any refund.

The only alternative to paying the new fee at the current time would be to file a fresh application. While this would come with less cost, it has the obvious disadvantage of the loss of the original filing date.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Daniel Tarr explains why returning to his former firm could help him establish his personal brand, and predicts what’s on the horizon for AI litigation
A call to reinstate the European Commission's controversial SEP proposal and a trademark row involving Stanley cups were also among the top talking points
Susman Godfrey and Polsinelli secured victory for power systems manufacturer Vicor at the US International Trade Commission
Longi’s actions against JinkoSolar are the latest in a growing number of patent infringement disputes involving solar technology
Former solo practitioner Merlyne Jean-Louis explains why she moved to the newly formed Pierson Ferdinand, which operates as a virtual firm
With the India IP office headquarters moving from Mumbai to Delhi, forum shoppers and firms in the capital could benefit
David Stone, a highly influential figure at legacy firm Allen & Overy, has joined White & Case in what is a major move early in 2025
While business has been tough, foreign law firms with IP practices that have decided to stay put in China reveal why they are optimistic
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 10 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2025
The Intellectual Property Judges' Association wrote to the European Commission just days before the proposals were shelved, it can be revealed
Gift this article