Author: info@www.utmps.com

United Arab Emirates: Trademark Disputes

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Trademark Disputes laws and regulations applicable in United Arab Emirates.

To represent a client before Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter, do you require a Power of Attorney – and if so, what are the execution formalities required by your courts?

A legalized POA, up to the UAE consulate from the client’s country would be required to represent a client before the Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter.

Upon receipt of the original legalized POA, we undertake the requisite formalities in the UAE, which include translating the document into Arabic and carrying out the required local legalization procedures.

Is it a requirement in your jurisdiction to send a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing proceedings for infringement? What are the consequences for a trademark owner who chooses not to send a pre-action letter?

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it is not a statutory requirement to issue a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before initiating legal proceedings for trademark infringement. A trademark owner retains the right to proceed directly with litigation before the competent UAE courts without first engaging the alleged infringer through pre-action correspondence. However, despite the absence of a legal obligation, the practice of sending a cease and desist letter remains a widely adopted and recommended approach within the jurisdiction.

A formal pre-action notice serves several practical and strategic purposes. Primarily, it provides the infringer with an opportunity to voluntarily cease the infringing activity, thereby potentially resolving the dispute amicably and avoiding costly and time-consuming litigation. Furthermore, such a notice may prompt constructive dialogue between the parties, facilitating an early settlement. From a procedural standpoint, the cease and desist letter also acts as documented evidence that the trademark owner made reasonable efforts to settle the matter extrajudicially, which may be viewed favorably by the court as an indication of good faith conduct.

Additionally, serving a pre-action notice establishes clear and formal communication to the infringer, eliminating any claim of ignorance regarding the alleged infringement. This can strengthen the trademark owner’s position, particularly if the infringer continues its unlawful activities after being put on notice, thereby demonstrating willful infringement and potentially supporting a claim for enhanced damages.

There is another option available in UAE, which is to serve the Notice letter as bilingual through the Court Notary in UAE. It is usually an effective way and the adverse party takes it more seriously as the letter bears the stamp of the court and is taken as a preliminary action before actual litigation commences.

Conversely, choosing not to send a cease and desist letter before commencing proceedings carries no direct legal penalties or adverse procedural consequences under UAE trademark law. However, it may limit the trademark owner’s ability to establish pre-litigation evidence of the infringer’s knowledge and bad faith. Moreover, the absence of prior notice may, in certain cases, be perceived by the court as a missed opportunity for amicable resolution, particularly if the infringement could have been promptly remedied upon notification.

In your jurisdiction, is there a risk that a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats? What steps should a trademark owner take to ensure any cease and desist letter does not expose the trademark owner to any liability.

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), there is no specific statutory provision allowing an alleged infringer to bring a claim against a trademark owner for unjustified threats arising from a pre-action letter. However, such letter shall be based on the trademark owner rights, non-defamatory, and does not amount to unfair competition.

To mitigate any potential risk, the letter should clearly set out the basis of the trademark owner’s rights, provide objective details of the alleged infringement, and claims/demands which are reasonable to be requested for such infringement.

Is it mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings prior to commencing infringement proceedings?

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it is not mandatory for parties to attempt mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before initiating trademark infringement proceedings. Trademark owners may directly file a claim before the competent courts or relevant authorities without any pre-litigation ADR requirement.

However, in emirate as Dubai, the Dubai Courts issued Circular No. 9/2021 mandating that the submission of a technical report by an authorized expert to be filed when filing a statement of claim before the Court for any intellectual property claims, otherwise the filed claim will be not be accepted.

Therefore, an application before the “Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes” shall be filed before resorting to the Court to obtain an expert report in the matter, after attending the meetings and sessions scheduled by the center.

After obtaining the Expert Report, the substantive claim before the Court can be initiated. The time frame for rendering the first instance Judgment is approximately 6-8 months.

Are claims for trademark infringements heard before a general commercial Court or a specialist Court focused on Intellectual Property disputes? Are trademark infringement claims decided by a judge or by a jury?

There are no specialized Intellectual Property (IP) courts dedicated exclusively to trademark disputes, therefore, the trademark infringement claims are heard before the general civil and commercial courts.

The trademark infringement matters are decided by the Judge, as juries are not part of the UAE judicial system.

Is there a time limit for commencing trademark infringement proceedings once the facts giving rise to the infringement are known to the trademark owner. After how long would such a claim be time-barred?

There is no specific statutory limitation period exclusively governing trademark infringement claims.

However, Article 18 of the UAE Trademark Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021) provides that if a trademark has been registered and used continuously for at least five (5) years without any legal challenge, its ownership can no longer be disputed, unless bad faith in registration is proven.

In your jurisdiction does the law protect unregistered trademarks of any kind, including by way of unfair competition or protection of trade dress. What are the criteria for their subsistence?

The unregistered trademarks may be protected under unfair competition provisions if the mark has been used in the market and acquired fame or distinctiveness.Accordingly, the unfair competition principles can safeguard unregistered marks, trade dress, if the owner can demonstrate that the mark is well-known or has established a reputation in the UAE, and that the infringer’s actions cause confusion or unfairly exploit this reputation/causing damages.

In your jurisdiction will the Court hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising, or does a claimant need to bring such claims in a separate cause of action?

The claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trade dress infringement, and misleading advertising may be brought together in a single action, provided they arise from the same facts, allowing the court to consider them concurrently.

In your jurisdiction, do your Courts share jurisdiction with your Trade Mark Office, such that parties need to seek to seize the forum they prefer first in time, or does the Court take precedence and intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings (for example relating to invalidity or revocation of registered trade mark) which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim?

If a trademark matter is decided by the UAE Trademark Office, for example an opposition matter, the decision of the UAE Trademark Office is appealable before the trademark committee, which is further appealable to the Court of First Instance.

In the UAE, the actions such as infringement claims, non-use cancellation action, cancellation action by the owner of a well-known trademark against the trademark registered in bad faith, are filed before the Ministry of Economy of the UAE, by virtue of Article 24 of the UAE Trademark Law No. 36 of 2021. The first jurisdiction is held by this Federal Ministry. If a matter is decided by the Ministry, then the decision is appealable before the Court of First Instance, which is the higher Authority of appeal.

The Court will note intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings and/or Ministry proceedings, which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim. If such a situation arises, parties may submit a request to the Trademark Office and/or Ministry to suspend the decisions in the live matters before them, while informing them about the proceedings before the Court, which might ultimately affect the decisions in the proceedings before the Trademark Office and/or the Ministry. Please note that although the parties have the provision to submit the request, but the discretion to entertain the request, lies with the concerned officials.

Where the defendant has a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark being asserted against it (either on the basis of earlier rights or as a result of non-use by the trademark proprietor), does the counterclaim become part of the infringement action, so that both issues are heard by the same Court within a single action, with the Court making a determination at its conclusion, or are the validity issues bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings? If in your jurisdiction validity issues are bifurcated, what are the practical consequences of this from a timing perspective? For example, does this mean that a Court will stay the infringement claim and proceed with the validity attack first to avoid finding a trademark infringed, only to have a separate Court find the trademark invalid at a later date?

In the UAE, the actions such as invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark, non-use cancellation action, are filed before the Ministry of Economy of the UAE, by virtue of Article 24 of the UAE Trademark Law No. 36 of 2021, and not before the Court.

If such parallel proceedings connected to each other, do take place, the Court may, at its own discretion stay the Court proceedings, until the invalidation decision is issued by the Ministry. We need to bear in mind that the decision by the Ministry, is appealable before the Court.

When the matter reaches the Courts by way of appeals, the matters will be entertained by different Courts and will not be consolidated as one proceeding, although it may be interrelated. However, as per our experience in the UAE, the UAE courts may not choose to suspend and/or do not keep a matter suspended for too long, as they prefer to decide the cases as early as possible.

If the main objective in commencing infringement proceedings is to secure an injunction, is a claimant required to state how much their claim is worth at the point their claim is issued?

Although in practicality financial damages may not be possible to be ascertained, however the claimant will have to submit an estimation of the losses that he has faced due to the infringement of his trademark by the defendant. Based on the claim made by the claimant, the court fees are determined by the Court, before the proceedings begin. Hence the claimant is required to state the claim amount.

Is it possible to seek a preliminary injunction in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the criteria a trademark owner needs to establish and is there a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the defendant if the Court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing?

Yes, it is possible to request for a preliminary injunction before the UAE Courts.

The Trademark Law provides for the possibility for trademark owners to obtain an attachment order on an ex parte basis from a judge of urgent matters. An attachment order results in the seizure of the specific goods contained in the order. An attachment order can be a useful way for a litigant to gather evidence before filing a civil case.

A trademark registration certificate is a statutory prerequisite for obtaining such an order, unless the mark in question is famous. The party seeking the order also must pay an adequate financial security prior to the order being issued.

For a preliminary injunction, the petitioner must show the following three elements:

A prima facie right to enforce the trademark, by virtue of being owner of the trade-mark registration.

Apprehension of irreparable harm if injunction is not granted.

Balance of harm in favor of the petitioner.

The standard of proof is that of a high probability of harm to the petitioner, including to the value of the trademark, and the petitioner’s reputation associated with it.

When the Court will issue an injunction order for the seizure of the products, the Court may appoint an expert, who will evaluate the value of the seized products, after which the Court will instruct the claimant to deposit a financial security or a bank security deposit or an undertaking that he will pay the compensation to the defendant, in case the matter is decided in the favour of the other party, and his allegations are found incorrect.

Is a licensee (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of a registered trademark entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement? Does the trademark proprietor need to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and does it have an effect whether the licensee is registered before the local Trademark Registry?

Yes. The licensee of a registered trademark is entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement. The trademark proprietor need not be joined as a party to the proceedings. However, it is mandatory that the license is recorded/registered before the UAE Trademark Office. An unrecorded licence does not have an effect against third parties and therefore, there is a tricky statutory limitation to enforce such rights against third parties.

Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant’s mark and the trademark owner’s registered mark, does the proprietor need to demonstrate that confusion has occurred or simply that there is a risk of confusion? What is the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement?

Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant’s mark and the trademark owner’s registered mark, it is not mandatory for the proprietor to demonstrate that confusion has occurred, even if he can sufficiently prove that the degree of confusion is of such that there is a risk of confusion among the consumers this would be a basis for the Court to decide on the infringement case.

The minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement, is that the infringers mark when compared as a whole, is confusingly similar to the claimant’s mark, so much so that it is causing or it may cause confusion in the minds of the general consumers.

In your jurisdiction what type of disclosure or discovery is typically ordered by the Court in respect of trademark infringement actions from both parties?

In the UAE, there are no disclosure or discovery requirements or obligations as understood. Attorneys for the parties can use the court to request information from each other, but are under no obligation, to do so.

Since the UAE does not have a full system of discovery, a party to litigation is under no obligation to disclose evidence to the court, particularly if submitting such evidence is adverse to its position in the litigation. The parties are free to disclose only the documentation of information that helps their case

However, the Court may appoint an expert, who may hold hearings to review and examine the dispute, obtain further findings and documents from both the parties, and conduct his or her own investigations and prepare an expert report, which will enable the expert to provide its opinion to the Court.

Although the expert report may suggest/guide the Court in taking the decision, but the Expert’s opinion is only suggestive and not binding to the Court. The Court may decide the matter at its own discretion.

Both parties can also make submissions that support or challenge the expert’s opinion by way of submitting memorandums at the appointed court hearings.

What type of expert evidence is permitted by the Court in your jurisdiction? Does the Court accept consumer surveys and are there specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. Do the parties need to request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence?

The Court requires the evidence adducing the claims of both the parties. This depends on the basis of the litigation. If the claimant is claiming that its trademark is famous in the Middle East, then the right holder will usually rely on trademark certificates from the GCC countries and other Arab-speaking nations will usually be beneficial to the case, apart from a home registration. These certificates should be original, certified copies (with translations prepared by a licensed UAE translator if they are not in Arabic).

Evidence of prior use is another important type of evidence that is considered by the Courts in the UAE, while reviewing the rights of different parties. These may be in the forms on invoices, bills of lading, letters of credit and the documents relating to the sale of the goods or services that are provided under the mark in the United Arab Emirates; Printed promotional material exhibiting the mark such as catalogues, brochures, pamphlets, stickers, posters, etc., distributed worldwide and/or in United Arab Emirates; Samples of advertisements in magazines, periodicals, journals having international circulation showing the mark;

Unlike in the other regions like Europe, where consumer surveys play a major role in submitting the evidence of the fame of the trademark and/or degree of knowledge of the trademark among the general public, the Courts in the UAE do not heavily depend on such surveys. It is not very common that parties submit such survey evidence in the UAE. Although the parties wish, they may conduct and submit such surveys as part of its evidence, such surveys will play the same role, as the other evidence would play. There are no specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted in the UAE. The parties need not request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence.

Does evidence submitted by your client in trademark infringement proceedings have to accompanied with a statement of truth or other similar declaration?

The evidence submitted before the UAE Court in trademark infringement proceedings do not have to be accompanied with any statement of truth or other similar declaration. This is not a practice in the UAE.

In your jurisdiction is it possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment of an infringement claim? What are the legal criteria for a Court to grant summary judgment?

Summary judgment is available in the DIFC Courts and the ADGM Courts, as the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) courts in Dubai and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) in Abu Dhabi have common law jurisdictions.

Moreover, Article 47 of the Federal Decree-Law no. (36) of 2021 Issued on 20/09/2021 ON TRADEMARKS – Provisional measures upon infringement of rights, states:

1- The right holder may, in case of infringement or in order to avoid an imminent infringement of any of the rights established under the provisions of this Decree-Law, obtain an order on a petition from the Magistrate of Summary Justice at the Civil Court with jurisdiction over the origin of the dispute, so as to take one or more appropriate provisional measures, including the following:

a- Making a detailed description of the infringement, the goods that are the subject-matter of this infringement, and the materials, tools and equipment used or that may be used therein.

b- Imposing seizure on the materials, tools and equipment referred to in the preceding paragraph of this clause, and the proceeds resulting from the infringement.

c- Preventing the goods that are the subject matter of the infringement from entering commercial channels and preventing their export, including imported goods forthwith after their customs clearance.

d- Preserving any evidence related to the subject matter of the infringement.

2- The Magistrate of Summary Justice may instruct the petitioner to submit whatever evidence in his possession suggesting that the right has been infringed or that the infringement is imminent, and to provide information that is sufficient to implement the provisional measure and identify the goods concerned.

3- The Magistrate of Summary Justice shall decide on the petition within a period not exceeding (10) ten days from the date of its filing, save for exceptional cases that he deems appropriate.

4- The Magistrate of Summary Justice may, when necessary, issue the order, at the request of the petitioner, without summoning the other party, if it is likely that the delay in issuing the order may cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff or if there is a fear that the evidence will be lost or destroyed. In this case, the other party shall be notified of the matter without any delay forthwith upon its issuance, and when necessary, the notification may be made immediately after execution of the order.

5- If the Magistrate of Summary Justice orders that a provisional measure be taken without summoning the other party, the defendant may, after being notified thereof, file a grievance against said order before the president of the court that issued it, within (15) fifteen days from the date of his notification thereof, and the president of the court in this case may confirm or modify or cancel the order. www.lexismiddleeast.com

6- The Magistrate of Summary Justice may instruct the petitioner to provide an appropriate financial guarantee or a bank guarantee sufficient to protect the defendant from abuse of the right, and the amount of the guarantee or bank guarantee shall be reasonable and appropriate.

7- The right holder may file a lawsuit in respect of the origin of the dispute within (20) twenty days from the date of the issuance of the order to take the provisional measure or from the date of his notification of the rejection of the grievance stipulated in clause (5) of this article, as the case may be, otherwise this order shall be cancelled at the request of the defendant.

Article 48- Claim for compensation

The Trademark owner incurring damage resulting from the infringement of any of his rights stipulated under the provisions of this Decree-Law, may file a lawsuit with the Civil Court to claim compensation in accordance with the general rules.

How long does it typically take to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from issue of the claim, through to first instance decision? What is the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action?

Typically, the First-instance proceedings take 5 to 10 months to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from the issue of the claim but can be longer, if the expert delays submitting their report or if the parties seek to appoint another expert.

the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action including attorney fees will be around 20000$ to 40000$, depending on the complication of the case.

Following a first instance decision, is it possible for either party to appeal the decision? What are the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged? Is it necessary to request permission to appeal, or are appeals automatically permissible? If either party file an appeal, is the enforcement of the first instance decision stayed pending the outcome of the appeal?

Yes, either party can appeal the Judgment of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeals within thirty [30] days, and Proceedings at the Court of Appeal will take 3 to 6 months.

The primary grounds for appealing a trademark infringement or cancellation decision generally revolve around errors in law or fact. This means an appellant can argue that the court misapplied the relevant trademark laws, misinterpreted the evidence presented, or failed to consider crucial legal precedents. For instance, an appeal might be filed if the court incorrectly determined the similarity of two marks, failed to assess the likelihood of consumer confusion, or disregarded evidence supporting prior use. Further grounds may include procedural irregularities during the initial trial, such as a lack of proper notice to a party, the denial of a fair hearing, or the improper admission of evidence. Additionally, an appeal can address new evidence that was not available or reasonably discoverable during the original trial, but which could significantly impact the outcome.

appeals automatically permissible, it is not necessary to request permission to appeal, as per article 161 of Federal Decree-Law No. (42) of 2022 Promulgating the Civil Procedure Code.

If either party files an appeal, the enforcement of the first instance decision stays pending until the outcome of the appeal, as enforcement is only for the final judgments.

If the parties have been involved in a dispute before the local Trademark Office, what relevance does this have on later infringement proceedings? For example where trademark owner (A) may have already sought to oppose the registration of a third party (B’s) mark in proceedings before the local Trade Mark Office, is the trademark owner estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trade mark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition?

Yes, in such circumstances, the trademark owner will be estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trademark where its opposition failed and where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition.

In your jurisdiction, does the Court consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding, or will any damages be assessed after the Court has reached a decision on liability? How are damages for trademark infringement proceedings typically assessed in your jurisdiction?

The UAE courts assess damages for trademark infringement based on the actual harm suffered by the trademark owner, which is typically evaluated using the following factors:

Loss of Profits:

The court may examine financial statements, sales records, and market impact to estimate the trademark owner’s lost revenue due to the infringement.

Unjust Enrichment of the Infringer:

If the infringer has profited from the unauthorized use of the trademark, the court may order compensation equivalent to the profits earned.

Market Reputation & Goodwill Damage:

The court may consider the negative impact on the brand’s reputation and goodwill.

Expert Reports:

The court often appoints a trademark or financial expert to assess the damage suffered by the claimant.

In addition to an injunction and damages, what other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?

The other remedies are available in the UAE, include:

Statutory Damages & Punitive Measures:

The UAE federal law no. (36) of 2021 concerning trademarks provides for fines and potential criminal penalties, which may be imposed alongside or instead of civil compensation.

Article 49 of the trademark law states:

Without prejudice to any severe penalty stipulated in any other law, a penalty of imprisonment and a fine of no less than (100,000) one hundred thousand dirhams and not more than (1,000,000) one million dirhams, or either of these two penalties, shall be imposed on whomever:

Forges a Trademark that was registered in accordance with the provisions of this Decree-Law or counterfeits a Trademark in a way that leads to confusing the public, whether in respect of the goods or services distinguished by the original Trademark or those that are similar thereto.

Knowingly uses a forged or counterfeit Trademark for commercial purposes.

Puts on his goods or uses in respect of the services he provides, in bad faith, a Trademark owned by others.

Possesses tools or materials with the intent of using them to forge or counterfeit registered or well-known Trademarks.

Knowingly imports or exports goods bearing a forged or counterfeit Trademark.

Article 50

Without prejudice to any more severe penalty stipulated in any other law, a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding one year and a fine of not less than (50,000) fifty thousand dirhams and not more than (200,000) two hundred thousand dirhams or either of these two penalties shall be imposed on whomever:

Sells or offers for sale or circulation or possesses with the intention of selling goods or offers the provision of services carrying a forged, imitated, or unlawfully put or used Trademark, despite his knowledge thereof.

Unlawfully uses an unregistered Trademark in the cases stipulated in Article (3) of this Decree-Law on his commercial papers and documents, goods, or services, and this would lead to the belief that the Trademark has been registered.

Article 51

In the event of recidivism, whoever commits any of the acts stipulated in Articles (49) and (50) of this Decree-Law shall be punished with a penalty that does not exceed twice the maximum penalty prescribed for the crime.

The court may order the closure of the facility, and order the confiscation of the tools, machines, and materials used in the offense.

Article 52

The court may publish the judgment of conviction at the expense of the convict.

Following a decision on the merits, is the winner entitled to recover all or a portion of its legal costs incurred in bringing or defending the proceedings. If legal costs are recoverable, what is the procedure involved and how does the Court assess the level of legal costs which should be reimbursed by the losing party.

The legal costs are generally recoverable, but only to a limited extent.

The winning party In the UAE litigation is entitled to recover a portion of its legal costs, but not necessarily the full amount, and the court fees, expert fees, and administrative costs may be awarded, but lawyer fees are awarded at the discretion of the court and are often minimal.

Legal fees for lawyers are capped and typically range between 816 US $ to 5445 US $, regardless of the actual expenses incurred.

Once the Court has issued a judgment, how long typically does the losing party have to comply with the Court’s judgment including any final injunction issued? What are the consequences for failing to comply and how would the winning party seek enforcement of its judgement.

Once a court issues a judgment in the UAE, the losing party is generally expected to comply with its terms, including any final injunctions, within a reasonable timeframe. While there is not a single, universally mandated deadline applicable to all cases, the execution process is typically initiated immediately following the judgment’s issuance. The specific time allowed for voluntary compliance can vary depending on the nature of the judgment and the court’s directives. For monetary judgments, a grace period might be implied to allow the losing party to arrange payment, but this is usually not explicitly stated. For injunctive relief, compliance is generally expected to be more immediate. The core principle is that the judgment is binding and must be obeyed without undue delay.

Failure to comply with a court judgment in the UAE carries significant consequences. Initially, the winning party can seek enforcement through the execution court. This process begins by submitting an execution application, often after a prescribed period has elapsed allowing for voluntary compliance. The execution court has broad powers, including attachment of assets, issuing travel bans, and even imprisonment for non-compliance with monetary judgments. Specifically concerning injunctions, failure to comply can incur penalties, including fines for ongoing breaches and potential contempt of court proceedings. The winning party, to enforce its judgment, will need to actively pursue the execution via the execution court, presenting the judgment and relevant documentation. This process could involve engaging with the court’s execution officers and potentially leveraging different legal enforcement tools available according to the law.










The Business of Innovation – Part 7 AI Strategy is About Platforms

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

These days, the prevailing conversation around AI focuses on user-level applications in day-to-day work. But the focus at AMCHAM’s MENA Regional Conference in Dubai last week was something quite different: the UAE as one of the most fertile environments globally for AI platform deployment.

The conference brought together stakeholders from AI technology, capital markets, government, construction, infrastructure, and intellectual property. The unifying theme was clear. Since the launch of the UAE National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence 2031, the country has been methodically setting the stage to host AI not merely in terms of application software, but as comprehensive infrastructure.

The UAE’s AI Strategy Is About Platforms, Not Applications

The UAE National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence 2031 was launched a few years ago by the Ministry of State for Artificial Intelligence. It sets out a clear and particularly comprehensive roadmap. Its eight stated objectives are not framed around applications or software alone, but around building a complete AI ecosystem:

  • Objective 1: Build a global reputation as an AI destination
  • Objective 2: Strengthen competitive assets in priority sectors through AI
  • Objective 3: Develop a fertile, end-to-end AI ecosystem
  • Objective 4: Embed AI across customer services and operations
  • Objective 5: Attract and train talent for AI-enabled jobs
  • Objective 6: Anchor world-leading research in target industries
  • Objective 7: Provide the data and infrastructure needed to operate as a real-world AI test bed
  • Objective 8: Ensure strong governance and effective regulation 

[Strategy | Artificial Intelligence Office, UAE]

The UAE is particularly unique and attractive as a host for AI platforms because it has all the resources that are needed coupled with the ability to roll them out quickly and efficiently. 

AI Is a Layered System, Not a Single Asset

Advanced AI is not a single piece of software. It is a deeply layered, continuously evolving system spanning energy, data centres, hardware, networks, models, deployment tooling, and real-world outputs.

Each layer introduces discrete technical challenges—and corresponding opportunities and needs for durable IP protection. In practice, some of the strongest and most enforceable IP arises not inside the model itself, but at the interfaces between layers, where systems integrate, scale, and interact with physical or regulated environments.

What the UAE is facilitating under its AI 2031 strategy is the full stack required to support this reality.

Where IP Value Is Being Created

In platform-based AI environments, protectable innovation commonly arises across:

  • Energy: Power, cooling, and energy-optimized infrastructure
  • Infrastructure: Data-centre architecture and fault-tolerant systems
  • Technical layer: Hardware-software interaction and compute orchestration
  • Data management: Networking, latency management, and secure data movement
  • Operational layer: Deployment, monitoring, explainability, and safety tooling
  • AI deliverables: domain-specific outputs embedded in real-world systems

A narrow focus on application software alone risks missing much of this value. A layered platform demands a layered IP strategy.

The Strategic Takeaway

The UAE is not positioning itself as a place to simply use AI. It is positioning itself as a place to build AI platforms at scale.

For organizations and joint ventures developing or deploying AI in the region, the implication is clear: IP protection must extend across the entire platform, not just the application layer.

*David Aylen is a Canadian IP lawyer now based in the UAE. While practicing in Canada, he was certified in 1998 as a Specialist in Patents-Trademarks-Copyright. He is also the holder of certificates in IP strategy and Patents from WIPO. He now serves as counsel to United Trademark & Patent Services

David.aylen@unitedtm.com

Introducing the UAE Industrial Property Appellate Board: What Applicants Need to Know

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

On May 8, 2025, the UAE Prime Ministry announced the establishment of the Industrial Property Grievance Committee, as outlined in Cabinet Resolution No. (36) of 2025. This new body, which came into effect on May 9, 2025, is designed to address patent disputes and aims to enhance fairness, transparency, and efficiency in resolving industrial property-related issues in the UAE.

Current vs. New Process

Prior to this development, patent disputes in the UAE lacked a formal appellate process, often leading to delays and inconsistent outcomes. The newly introduced system streamlines the dispute resolution process by establishing clear procedural timelines. Following the registration decision by the Ministry, a grant certificate will be issued unless a post-grant re-examination is requested within 90 days. However, any interested party has the right to file a grievance within 60 days of the decision. If the grievance is not resolved to their satisfaction, the applicant may appeal the Grievance Committee’s decision within a further 30-day period to the competent court.

Key Features of the New Appellate Process

  1. Appeals Timeline: Appeals must be filed within 60 working days from the date of the decision notification to the party concerned.
  2. Committee Formation: Upon receiving an appeal, the Ministry will review the procedural requirements and form the Industrial Property Grievance Committee. The Committee may request additional information, data, or supporting documentation from the appellant, ensuring that all necessary details are considered before proceeding.
  3. Hearings and Expert Opinions: Both parties involved in the dispute will have the opportunity to present evidence. The Committee can also seek expert opinions when deemed necessary to ensure an informed decision-making process.
  4. Decision and Communication: The Committee will issue a reasoned decision within 60 days of the appeal submission. This decision will include legal and factual grounds for the ruling. The decision will be communicated to the parties within 15 working days through modern communication channels.
  5. Publication for Transparency: To ensure transparency, all final decisions will be published in the Official Gazette, providing public access to the outcomes and reinforcing the system’s accountability.

A Step Forward for UAE’s Patent System

The establishment of the Industrial Property Grievance Committee marks a significant step forward in strengthening the UAE’s intellectual property (IP) framework. By providing a formalized, transparent, and efficient process for resolving patent disputes, this new mechanism offers applicants greater legal certainty and confidence in the protection of their innovations.

The introduction of this system reflects the UAE’s ongoing commitment to improving its IP regime, aligning with global best practices and providing a more robust and predictable environment for businesses and innovators operating in the region.

For further details, please refer to the official announcement: Source. 

For practical insights, feel free to reach out to our experienced Patent Team at: patents@unitedtm.com 

The Business of Innovation Part 6: The Crucial Role of a Resident IP Asset Manager and Administrator

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

Business of Innovation Series

This article is part of our Business of Innovation series, exploring how organizations can optimize profits with effective innovation strategies and IP asset management.

The Growing Importance of IP Asset Management

In the evolving landscape of innovation, where intellectual property (IP) is a strategic asset and innovation ecosystems span internal teams and external partners, organizations need more than just sound policies and strategies.

They require dedicated expertise to manage, protect, and maximize their IP assets day-to-day.

The Role of a Resident IP Asset Manager

This is where the role of a resident IP Asset Manager and Administrator becomes indispensable.

Why a Resident IP Asset Manager?

Intellectual property is complex and dynamic. Patents expire, trademarks require renewals, licensing agreements evolve, and new inventions emerge constantly.

Without continuous oversight, organizations risk losing control of their IP, missing critical deadlines, or failing to leverage opportunities for monetization and collaboration.

A resident IP Asset Manager is not the director of R&D, although they may work closely together. The IP Asset Manager acts as the organization’s IP custodian, ensuring alignment between IP assets, business objectives, and legal requirements.

Key Responsibilities

  • Portfolio Management: Maintaining an accurate and up-to-date inventory of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and licenses.
  • Deadline Monitoring: Tracking filing, renewal, and maintenance deadlines to prevent lapses in protection.
  • Contract Coordination: Supporting negotiation and execution of IP-related agreements with suppliers, partners, and licensees.
  • Internal Collaboration: Working with R&D, legal, business development, and finance teams to embed IP considerations into business processes.
  • Risk Management: Identifying potential infringements or unauthorized use and coordinating enforcement actions.
  • Reporting & Analytics: Delivering insights on portfolio value, performance metrics, and market trends.

Benefits of a Dedicated IP Asset Manager

Organizations with a resident IP Asset Manager experience smoother IP operations, fewer administrative errors, and improved strategic decision-making.

This role allows leadership and innovators to focus on growth while ensuring IP assets are properly managed and leveraged.

As companies increasingly engage in open innovation, joint ventures, and complex ecosystems, the IP Asset Manager serves as a critical central point of contact.

Building the IP Function for the Future

Developing a skilled IP Asset Manager is not just about administration — it is about embedding IP expertise into the organization. Training, adoption of IP management technologies, and clear operational processes enable this role to evolve into a strategic enabler of innovation success.

Contact Our Team ›

Conclusion

In today’s fast-paced innovation economy, intellectual property demands dedicated stewardship.

A resident IP Asset Manager and Administrator connects IP strategy to execution, mitigates risk, and unlocks sustainable growth opportunities.

Investing in this role is an investment in the long-term success of your innovation portfolio and your organization.

The Business of Innovation Part 5: Building an IP Strategy to Flourish in a Diversified Economy

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

This article is part of our Business of Innovation series, exploring how best to manage IP assets.

As we’ve seen in earlier parts of this series, innovation thrives when internal silos are broken down, and IP is treated as a strategic asset. In this fifth instalment, we turn our attention outward — to the broader ecosystem in which modern innovators operate.

Today’s innovators do not work in isolation. Whether delivering products, services, or hybrid offerings, the days of purely vertically integrated business models—where every component and capability originates internally—are largely behind us.

The Diversified Economy Ecosystem

The dominant business model today is a diversified ecosystem: a network of customers, competitors, suppliers, joint venture partners, and collaborators who each bring specialized expertise and value.

Consider Apple: its cutting-edge devices result not from in-house efforts alone, but from a sophisticated supply chain of independent suppliers, research houses, component manufacturers, and software partners—many of whom also work with direct competitors like Samsung.

The Collaboration Imperative

In such an ecosystem, innovators must collaborate with trusted partners across many relationships, including:

  • Independent contractors
  • Suppliers of critical components
  • Service providers such as cloud computing platforms, utility companies, and logistics firms
  • Production and manufacturing partners
  • Research and development collaborators
  • Joint venture partners
  • Even competitors, where cooperative innovation or shared infrastructure makes strategic sense

Collaboration is often the only route to market success. Yet it requires sharing sensitive, high-value information—market intelligence, technical know-how, design specifications, proprietary algorithms, and more.

This creates a paradox: innovation thrives on openness, yet openness increases exposure to risk.

Why an IP Strategy Is Fundamental

In a diversified economy, intellectual property (IP) strategy is far more than a legal formality — it is the organization’s shield and playbook.

Without a robust IP strategy, valuable ideas can leak to competitors, supplier relationships can sour over ownership disputes, and commercial negotiations can stall amid uncertainty about rights.

What’s Different in a Diversified Economy?

In a diversified economy, it is not only important to understand what your competitors are doing. It is equally important to understand what everyone within your broader ecosystem is doing.

AI-driven patent analytics and public IP databases can help create multi-dimensional maps of the innovation landscape. This insight reveals potential overstepping by others within the ecosystem, possible infringement zones, white space opportunities, and new partnership leverage, including in-licensing and out-licensing prospects.

An Effective IP Strategy in a Diversified Economy

An effective IP strategy should:

  • Identify all categories of IP and the assets within them
  • Include a frequently updated IP landscape analysis
  • Define ownership of IP created through collaborations or joint ventures
  • Set clear confidentiality protocols for sharing and storing proprietary data
  • Align contracts to ensure enforceable IP clauses with suppliers and partners
  • Classify core versus non-core IP, enabling decisions on protection, licensing, or sharing
  • Establish enforcement triggers clarifying when and how to act if rights are infringed

Key Tips for Innovators in a Diversified Economy

  • Map your ecosystem: Understand who has access to which IP assets and where leakage risks exist
  • Negotiate IP terms early: Define ownership and usage rights before collaboration begins
  • Use layered protection: Combine patents, trade secrets, contracts, and technical safeguards
  • Train your teams: Ensure employees interacting with partners understand IP protocols
  • Monitor the market: Actively watch for misuse of IP, especially by partners working with competitors

In a diversified economy, your IP strategy is more than a defensive measure — it is a growth enabler. It allows organizations to collaborate widely, move quickly, and leverage external expertise without losing control of their most valuable assets.

Innovation today is a team sport, but in that game, your IP strategy is both your rulebook and your referee.

In the upcoming Part 6, we will highlight the importance of the IP Manager role within an organization.

Contact Our Team ›

The Business of Innovation Part 4: An IP Policy Must be More than a Mere Bureaucratic Rule Book

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

This article is part of our Business of Innovation series, which examines how organizations can turn intellectual property management into a driver of collaboration, culture, and commercial success.

In many organizations, intellectual property (IP) policies are treated primarily as compliance tools — documents that define ownership, standardize disclosure forms, and set filing procedures.

While these elements are essential, an IP policy viewed only as a bureaucratic necessity risks stifling the creativity it is meant to protect.

A well-designed IP policy should be tailored to the organization and act as a strategic and motivational framework that fosters innovation, builds team spirit, and strengthens collective ownership of ideas.

Collaboration Begins with Clarity

Innovation today thrives on cross-functional collaboration. Breakthroughs emerge from the convergence of ideas across R&D, legal, business development, engineering, marketing, and product teams.

A strong IP policy provides the ground rules for this collaboration — not to restrict, but to clarify.

By defining how contributions are captured, evaluated, and protected, it reassures team members that their work will be recognized and safeguarded. When innovators understand the rules of engagement, trust grows and openness follows.

Recognition Fuels Motivation

Recognition is one of the most powerful motivators for creative professionals.

An effective IP policy builds in mechanisms for attribution — from internal inventor awards and cross-functional innovation showcases to acknowledgement in company communications.

Seeing ideas protected and celebrated fosters loyalty, strengthens engagement, and inspires further contributions.

IP as a Unifier of Functions

An IP policy aligned with business strategy helps dissolve silos between innovation, legal, and commercial teams.

When everyone operates from a shared framework — including criteria for patentability, commercial potential, and competitive positioning — decisions become faster, conflicts decrease, and innovation becomes more inclusive.

A Living Policy for a Dynamic Culture

An IP policy should evolve alongside the business. It must be embedded into onboarding, training, and team development processes.

Beyond legal standards, it should reflect company values such as openness, fairness, and recognition.

When IP policy is viewed not as legal overhead but as a tool for alignment and empowerment, it becomes a catalyst for innovation.

People who feel heard, valued, and protected are far more likely to contribute their best ideas — and that is the true engine of progress.

Key Takeaways

  • A modern IP policy is a strategic and cultural tool, not merely a legal document
  • Clear rules of engagement enable smoother collaboration across functions
  • Recognition of contributions through IP processes builds trust, morale, and engagement
  • Shared IP frameworks help unify technical, legal, and commercial teams
  • Regular updates and communication keep the policy relevant and embedded in company culture

In the next part of The Business of Innovation, we will explore how the modern diversified economy impacts an IP strategy.

The Business of Innovation Part 3: Breaking Down Silos for Commercial Success

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

This article is part of our Business of Innovation series, exploring how organizations can move from fragmented innovation efforts to cohesive, value-driven strategies.

In a prior article, I examined how innovation silos — particularly the lack of internal sharing of technical advancements — can lead to redundant effort and missed opportunities.

But even when technical insights are exchanged effectively across departments, another obstacle often remains: the disconnect between functional areas that must work together to achieve commercial success.

While many organizations continue to invest significantly in innovation, it is striking how few inventions ever reach the market.

Industry estimates suggest that up to 90 percent of patented inventions are never commercialized. This stark reality underlines a key point: in business, innovation is measured not by inventiveness alone, but by impact.

Turning ideas into tangible value requires more than a capable R&D team. It demands coordination between executive leadership, marketing and sales teams, and technical innovators.

Without alignment among these functions, even the most promising technologies risk stalling before delivering meaningful business results.

The Problem of Functional Silos

Too often, innovation efforts are undermined by structural barriers between key functions.

R&D teams may develop technically impressive solutions without commercial input or executive buy-in. Marketing may craft messaging that misrepresents or oversells actual capabilities. Leadership may set strategic goals that do not align with market readiness or technical feasibility.

This misalignment erodes what economists call commercial appropriability — the ability to convert innovation into competitive advantage, market share, and revenue.

Without it, even the best ideas can end up as uncommercialized patents or prototypes.

Toward Cross-Functional Integration

Bridging these divides requires early and intentional collaboration between technical, commercial, and strategic stakeholders.

Innovation should not be a relay baton passed from one department to another — it should be co-developed from the outset.

Key enablers include:

  • Early involvement of commercial teams to shape innovation roadmaps with market insight
  • Providing business context to technical teams so R&D aligns with strategic priorities
  • Executive leadership acting as integrators to bridge divides, align incentives, and champion cross-functional collaboration
  • Unified success metrics that reflect enterprise-wide impact, not just departmental achievements

From Invention to Impact

Innovation without commercialization is merely invention.

A truly effective innovation strategy unites technical capability, executive vision, and market insight into a cohesive process that consistently delivers value.

Breaking down functional silos is not a one-off initiative — it is an ongoing commitment to collaboration, transparency, and shared success.

In the next part of The Business of Innovation, I will explore why an IP Playbook is not merely a bureaucratic internal policy document.

Contact Our Team ›

The Business of Innovation Part 2: Breaking Down Silos to Accelerate Development

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

In Part 1 of “The Business of Innovation”, we explored how managing intellectual property strategically can unlock enterprise value.

In this second instalment, we turn to a less obvious but equally damaging barrier to innovation: internal silos. We examine how disconnects within an organization can slow development, waste resources, and undermine the return on innovation.

In today’s competitive and fast-moving business environment, innovation is not optional — it is essential. Most organizations recognize this and invest heavily in innovation, allocating teams, budgets, and dedicated resources.

Innovators are rightly taught not to “reinvent the wheel.” They are encouraged to study published patent prior art, learn from others, and build on what already exists.

Ironically, however, many organizations fail to apply that same principle internally. Teams often operate in silos, unaware of the solutions and breakthroughs emerging just down the hall.

The result? They may end up reinventing the wheel within their own organization — or worse, miss out on using it altogether.

A popular image circulating online captures this perfectly. In it, one team proudly unveils their latest invention: a wheel. Nearby, another team struggles to drag a heavy box across the ground.

When offered help, they reply, “We don’t have time to talk — we’re too busy.” The irony is stark: a single conversation could have saved time, effort, and resources.

It is a humorous but all-too-real metaphor for how siloed innovation can hinder progress.

The Case for a Unified Innovation Strategy

The solution lies in adopting a unified innovation strategy — or better yet, establishing an internal innovation hub.

This does not mean suppressing creativity at the department level. Instead, it is about creating a framework that promotes the free flow of knowledge, cross-functional collaboration, and strategic alignment across the enterprise.

With a central innovation hub, ideas do not get stuck in departmental echo chambers. Instead, they are surfaced, shared, evaluated, and implemented where they can have the most impact.

For example, a tool developed in the IT department might streamline logistics operations, or a new workflow from legal could simplify compliance for R&D.

Without mechanisms to share these insights, valuable opportunities are lost.

Preserving and Leveraging Institutional Knowledge

Unified strategies also build institutional memory.

Innovation hubs can serve as repositories for knowledge, data, and lessons learned — ensuring that critical insights do not disappear when people change roles or leave the organization.

They align innovation efforts with broader business goals and prevent duplication of effort, making sure the wheel is invented once and used wherever it is needed.

Organizations that break down innovation silos tend to move faster, respond more effectively to change, and make better use of their existing talent and ideas.

Those that do not risk stagnation — not because they lack innovation, but because they fail to connect it.

Conclusion

The message is simple but powerful: innovation works best when it is shared.

By fostering communication and collaboration, companies can unlock their full creative potential.

Because in the end, a wheel only changes the game if everyone knows it exists.

In Part 3 of “The Business of Innovation”, we will further examine the challenge of silos — this time vertically within an organization.

The Business of Innovation Part 1: Managing IP for Results

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

In this new series, “The Business of Innovation”, we explore the critical elements that turn ideas into commercial success.

In this first instalment, we look at how organizations can move beyond viewing intellectual property as a purely legal function, and instead treat it as a strategic driver of enterprise value.

In the 21st-century economy, value creation is being reshaped by the intangible.

Intellectual property (IP) no longer simply protects innovations; it defines competitive boundaries, unlocks new markets, and fuels growth.

Today, intangible assets — including patents, proprietary data, algorithms, trademarks, and trade secrets — can represent up to 90% of a company’s total value.

Consider Nvidia, whose meteoric rise has been powered not just by its GPUs, but by its aggressive IP portfolio and positioning within the AI ecosystem.

Traditional metrics based on tangible assets no longer tell the full story. In this context, capturing IP is not just about legal protection — it is about realizing a business strategy.

This article outlines key strategic imperatives for forward-looking organizations seeking to maximize innovation outcomes through smarter IP asset management.

These imperatives are not checklists, but mindset shifts for long-term value.

Rethink IP as a Strategic Asset Class

IP must be understood as a dynamic corporate asset with distinct lifecycle value — from early-stage R&D to monetization or strategic exit.

It is no longer sufficient to merely hold patents or trademarks.

Instead, organizations must articulate how their IP portfolio aligns with their commercial model and growth targets.

Custom strategies are critical. What protects a biotech startup may stifle a SaaS scale-up.

Start with an IP audit, but ensure it evolves into a living strategy that supports organizational vision and adapts to market shifts.

Connect IP to the Enterprise Value Narrative

The true power of IP lies in how it supports value creation, differentiation, and future growth.

Are you securing freedom to operate in emerging markets? Building leverage for future licensing deals? Or crafting a defensible moat for investors?

Executives must learn to view IP less as a legal necessity and cost centre, and more as a tool for achieving return on innovation — the new ROI.

The closer IP strategy aligns with the CEO’s vision, the more likely it is to deliver tangible outcomes.

Inventory the Intangible

What you do not know you own can hurt you.

Untracked trade secrets, overlooked copyrights, or undocumented know-how expose organizations to risk and missed opportunities.

A modern IP audit maps not just formal rights but the broader web of intangible assets — including data, regulatory approvals, proprietary methodologies, and third-party relationships.

These maps are invaluable for licensing, M&A, and strategic alliances.

Map the Innovation Ecosystem

Companies operate within innovation ecosystems, not vacuums.

Use ecosystem analysis to understand where your IP stands relative to partners, suppliers, and disruptors.

AI-driven patent analytics and public IP databases can create multi-dimensional maps of the innovation landscape.

This insight reveals white space opportunities, potential infringement zones, and partnership leverage. More on this in Part 5.

Make the CEO Vision Operational

Too often, IP management is reactive and siloed.

To unlock its full value, IP must be tied directly to leadership’s vision.

Whether the goal is market expansion, investor readiness, or long-term licensing, the IP strategy must follow.

IP asset managers should act as strategic translators — turning high-level business goals into concrete IP actions, from portfolio pruning to acquisition due diligence. More on this in Part 6.

Evaluate Appropriability, Not Just Inventiveness

An invention’s brilliance does not guarantee commercial success.

Its viability depends on appropriability — how easily others can copy it, time to market, regulatory hurdles, and customer adoption.

The Betamax versus VHS format war is a classic example: the superior technology lost to superior market positioning.

Today, AI models and software platforms face similar dynamics. These risks should be evaluated before investing heavily in protection.

Activate IP Early and Often

IP does not need to sit dormant until litigation or M&A.

Strategic IP can be activated throughout its lifecycle — as collateral for funding, in co-branding initiatives, or as part of open innovation ecosystems.

Some companies proactively license high-interest patents early to generate revenue while market attention is high, rather than waiting for inevitable infringement battles.

Build an IP Playbook for Teams

Innovation is a team sport.

Create internal playbooks that demystify the IP process, encourage disclosure, and define procedures for documentation and ownership.

A well-structured IP policy also reduces risk by setting boundaries around confidentiality, third-party contributions, and open-source compliance.

Make the rules clear, accessible, and aligned with performance incentives. More on this in Part 4.

Cultivate a Culture of Strategic Innovation

Great IP portfolios emerge from deliberate cultures of innovation.

That culture starts with leadership and permeates through R&D, legal, marketing, and beyond.

Train teams to think of IP not as paperwork but as strategy.

Integrate IP checkpoints into product development cycles, encourage collaboration across silos, and reward cross-functional innovation.

Measure What Matters IP valuation is notoriously difficult, but critical. Go beyond the balance sheet. Use scenario analysis, licensing potential, and ecosystem relevance to assess strategic value. AI tools can help estimate patent quality and market applicability. Even informal valuations bring intangible assets into the boardroom conversation and support smarter decision-making.

Contact Our Team ›

Conclusion

The knowledge economy rewards those who turn invisible assets into visible advantage.

By treating IP as a strategic capability rather than a legal function, organizations can unlock hidden value, defend their innovation edge, and chart more confident growth paths.

In the next article in “The Business of Innovation”, we will explore how breaking down internal innovation silos can accelerate progress, improve appropriability, and strengthen your organization’s competitive position.

Protecting Morocco’s Cultural Heritage: Zellige safeguarded with WIPO Support

Posted on by info@www.utmps.com

New WIPO agreement aims to secure fair recognition and economic benefits for Moroccan artisans.

Morocco is putting more effort into protecting its cultural heritage, starting with Zellige, one of the country’s most famous traditional crafts. In April 2024, the Minister of Culture met with the Director General of WIPO to work on an agreement that could help protect local artisans from cheap copies and unfair use of their work. It’s a clear sign that Morocco wants to use intellectual property in a way that supports the people and communities behind these crafts.

Zellige, sometimes spelled Zellij, is a traditional Moroccan mosaic tilework made from hand-cut pieces arranged in intricate geometric patterns and set into plaster. This craft is a hallmark of Moroccan architecture, found in palaces, fountains, and mosques, and is produced using techniques passed down through generations. It is a big part of the country’s cultural identity and helps thousands of families make a living. As Moroccan patterns gain global popularity, unauthorized copying and misuse are increasing concerns. (Oxford Reference, Britannica)

In recent years, Morocco has faced everything from regional claims to global brands using Zellige designs without giving proper credit. Algeria’s push to have Zellige listed as its own UNESCO heritage and the Adidas jersey controversy are just two examples. (Morocco World News). Morocco took key steps to protect Zellige, by first registering it with WIPO and exploring patent protection in October 2022. Then, in April 2024, the Culture Minister met with the WIPO Director General to reinforce these efforts and to ensure that local artisans benefit from their heritage. .

Protecting crafts like Zellige isn’t just about national pride; it’s about making sure the people who make them are rewarded with fair returns. That’s where intellectual property comes in. Morocco is looking at options like Geographical Indications (GIs), which connect a product’s quality and reputation to where it comes from. This has worked well for Moroccan Argan oil, which gained international GI protection in 2011.

Another option is to recognize Zellige as a Traditional Cultural Expression (TCE). This gives communities a say in how their cultural symbols are used, making it harder for companies or other countries to claim them unfairly. WIPO has supported countries in protecting TCEs for years, though it remains an evolving part of IP law (WIPO TCEs). If the new deal with WIPO moves forward, it could give local artisans more tools to stop cheap copies and grow the market for genuine, locally made Zellige.

Morocco’s efforts put it alongside other countries that use IP law to protect traditional crafts. India, for example, has secured Geographical Indications for dozens of local products, from Banarasi silk sarees to Darjeeling tea, helping rural communities earn more while keeping their heritage alive. Turkey did something similar with its famous Antep Baklava.

But in North Africa, there’s still tension over who “owns” certain crafts. Algeria’s bid for UNESCO status is one example of overlapping cultural claims. For Morocco, having a clear IP framework could help settle these disputes and strengthen its position as a leader in protecting cultural heritage in the region. As global demand for authentic, handmade goods grows, proper legal protection means buyers know they’re getting the authentic product and the people who make it get the credit and income they deserve.

Morocco’s push to protect Zellige shows that intellectual property can do more than just guard ideas, it can uplift communities, preserve cultural identity, and help traditional crafts to compete fairly. If the new WIPO agreement goes ahead, artisans could have stronger rights and more effective means to stop misuse. But laws alone aren’t enough. Buyers need to know what they’re supporting, rules must be enforced locally, and younger generations must be encouraged to keep these skills alive. By combining modern IP tools with community action, Morocco can show how traditional knowledge, and cultural expressions can thrive in a world that values authenticity more than ever.

WIPO : Traditional Cultural Expressions
https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/folklore/