The United Arab Emirates has officially acceded to the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs, with the Agreement set to enter into force on 6 October 2026.
By adopting the internationally recognized Locarno Classification, the UAE will use a standardized system for classifying industrial designs that is already applied by many jurisdictions worldwide. This brings several benefits, including:
Greater consistency in the examination and administration of design applications.
Easier identification and comparison of registered designs across participating jurisdictions.
Improved efficiency for applicants, IP professionals, and intellectual property offices through the use of a common classification framework.
Enhanced harmonization with international design protection practices, making it easier for businesses seeking protection in multiple markets.
The UAE’s accession to the Locarno Agreement reflects its strong collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), under the leadership of Daren Tang, Director General of WIPO, in advancing international IP cooperation and harmonized protection standards. Under the leadership of H.E. Abdulla bin Touq Al Marri, Minister of Economy and Tourism and H.E. Dr. Abdulrahman Hassan Al Muaini, Assistant Undersecretary for Intellectual Property Rights Sector at the Ministry of Economy and Tourism, the UAE has continued to introduce forward-looking IP initiatives that strengthen confidence among innovators, designers, and investors while reinforcing the country’s position as a global hub for innovation and the creative economy.
As the UAE continues to strengthen its industrial design protection framework, UTMPS is well positioned to assist businesses, designers, and rights holders with securing and managing design protection in the UAE, helping them navigate local requirements while aligning their IP strategies with international best practices.
The United Arab Emirates continues to strengthen its position as a regional hub for innovation, technology and intellectual property protection. As part of this ongoing development, the UAE Ministry of Economy has introduced the Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) Programme, alongside enhanced cooperation with international patent offices, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The programme was formalised through a Joint Statement of Intent signed on 20 July 2025 between the UAE Ministry of Economy and Tourism and the USPTO during the 66th Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO in Geneva.The cooperation framework aims to improve patent grant efficiency by enabling the UAE Patent Office to consider positive examination results issued by the USPTO for corresponding UAE patent applications, subject to UAE legal and procedural requirements.
The introduction of the APG Programme represents an important development in the UAE patent landscape. However, given its name, applicants may understandably assume that an APG request automatically places an application into an expedited examination process. The current Guidelines issued by the UAE Patent Office clarify that this is not the case.
The APG Programme introduces a different form of acceleration: reducing duplication in substantive examination by allowing the UAE Patent Office to rely on certain findings from a cooperating foreign patent office, while maintaining compliance with UAE patent law.
APG and Express Examination: Two Different Routes
A key distinction must be drawn between an Accelerated Patent Grant request and an Express Examination request.
Under the Guidelines for Accelerated Patent Grant issued by the UAE Patent Office, an APG request is submitted through the Ministry of Economy’s procedure for declaring grant in a foreign office and is available for eligible UAE-related patent applications examined by a cooperating foreign patent office, including the USPTO.
However, an APG request does not place an application into an expedited examination queue.
The Patent Office has clarified that applications submitted under the APG Programme continue to be processed in the normal examination track. Where an applicant wishes to obtain priority examination, a separate Express Examination request must be filed in accordance with Article 14 of Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 and Article 38 of Regulation No. 6 of 2022, together with payment of the applicable official fee.
Express Examination operates differently by placing the application into a separate examination queue.
How Does APG Accelerate the Grant Process?
The value of the APG Programme lies in streamlining the substantive examination process.
For eligible applications, the UAE Patent Office may rely on the positive examination outcome issued by the cooperating foreign patent office, meaning that the UAE examiner will not reconsider certain patentability aspects, specifically novelty and inventive step, where the requirements of the programme are satisfied.
The application must nevertheless continue to comply with all other requirements under UAE Industrial Property Law. This includes applicable formal requirements and other substantive legal requirements that remain within the scope of UAE examination.
Accordingly, while an APG request does not advance an application’s position in the examination queue, it may reduce the overall processing time after examination begins by avoiding duplication of assessment on novelty and inventive step.
UAE–USPTO Cooperation: Supporting International Patent Strategies
The APG Programme forms part of broader cooperation between the UAE and international patent offices. In particular, the UAE and the USPTO have established a framework allowing the UAE Patent Office to consider positive examination results issued by the USPTO for corresponding UAE patent applications, subject to compliance with UAE legal requirements.
This cooperation is particularly relevant for applicants pursuing a U.S.-first patent filing strategy and subsequently seeking protection in the UAE.
For innovators and businesses operating in sectors where speed to market is critical—including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, clean energy and advanced technologies—the ability to leverage previous examination work can provide greater predictability and efficiency in obtaining patent protection.
Strategic Considerations for Applicants
Applicants should consider the APG Programme as part of a wider patent prosecution strategy.
Where an applicant has an eligible corresponding foreign application with a positive examination outcome, an APG request may assist in reducing examination duplication. Where obtaining examination at the earliest possible stage is commercially important, applicants may consider combining an APG request with Express Examination, where applicable.
This distinction is important for businesses managing investment timelines, licensing discussions, technology commercialisation plans or enforcement strategies.
United Trademark & Patent Services [UTPS] Firm Among Early Users of the APG Framework
As one of the first patent practices in the region to engage with the newly introduced APG framework, UTPS filed an APG request on behalf of the Applicant during the programme’s early implementation phase and successfully obtained the first examination report, which contained only minor amendment requirements [non substantial] before the Patent Office could proceed with the grant of the application.
This early experience has provided practical insight into the operation of the new procedure and its interaction with existing UAE examination mechanisms. As the programme continues to develop through administrative practice, applicants will benefit from advice that reflects both the published Guidelines and practical experience with the UAE Patent Office’s evolving approach.
A Positive Development in the UAE Patent Landscape
The APG Programme represents another important step in the UAE’s continued efforts to modernise its intellectual property system and create an innovation-friendly environment.
While APG should not currently be understood as a replacement for Express Examination or as a mechanism that automatically prioritises examination, it introduces an important efficiency measure by enabling reliance on prior examination work from cooperating patent offices.
As the UAE patent system continues to evolve, initiatives such as APG demonstrate the country’s commitment to creating a more efficient, internationally connected and commercially responsive framework for protecting innovation.
For further guidance on how this development may impact your patent strategy, contact us at patents@unitedtm.com. Our team remains committed to supporting inventors, businesses, and IP stakeholders navigating the evolving intellectual property landscape across the UAE, the wider Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
Disclaimer – This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the UAE Patent Office’s current Guidelines and practice at the time of publication, which may evolve. Applicants should seek specific advice and confirm the latest requirements before taking action.
The UAE has taken another important step in strengthening its industrial property and patent protection framework through the formation of the Industrial Property Grievance Committee. While some market commentary has described it as an “appellate board,” the official name used in Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 is the Industrial Property Grievance Committee, and that distinction matters because this is not simply a new label on an old process. It gives applicants, patent owners, and interested third parties a clearer administrative route for challenging Ministry decisions before moving into court proceedings where applicable. For innovators, this is the kind of procedural upgrade that can turn uncertainty into a manageable legal pathway, especially in sectors where one patent decision can shape investment, licensing, fundraising, product launches, and market entry. The official UAE legislation platform lists Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 as issued on March 27, 2025, published in Official Gazette No. 796 on March 28, 2025, and marked as active.
This development also fits into a much bigger UAE policy story: the country wants to be taken seriously as a regional and global innovation hub, not just as a place where businesses register entities or open regional headquarters. The Ministry of Economy and Tourism has highlighted that the UAE’s industrial property framework is built around Federal Law No. 11 of 2021, which applies to patents, industrial designs, integrated circuits, undisclosed information, and utility models, including within free zones. That wider scope is important because many IP disputes do not sit neatly in one box. A technology company may have a patent issue, a design issue, a trade secret issue, and a licensing issue all sitting inside the same commercial relationship. In that kind of environment, a structured grievance mechanism is less like paperwork and more like a pressure valve: it gives parties a formal place to present arguments before the dispute escalates.
Official Legal Basis and Timeline
The legal foundation for the new mechanism is Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 Regarding the Formation and Rules of Procedure of the Industrial Property Grievance Committee. The Resolution states that the Committee was established to adjudicate grievances referred to under Federal Law No. 11 of 2021, with the Ministry of Economy serving as the relevant Ministry for the purposes of the Resolution. It also names the Committee chair and members, sets the Committee’s jurisdiction, and explains how grievances are to be submitted, registered, heard, and decided. In simple terms, it takes the grievance concept that already existed in the wider industrial property law and gives it a practical operating structure. The Resolution also provides that it is to be published in the Official Gazette and enter into force on the day following publication, which is why applicants should treat the official publication timeline as the most reliable reference point.
Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 is equally important because it explains why the Committee exists in the first place. The Law defines the Committee as the grievance committee formed by Cabinet decision, defines the competent court as the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal, and defines industrial property as rights attached to patents, utility model certificates, designs, integrated circuits, and undisclosed information. It also states that industrial property protection aims to support knowledge and innovation in the UAE while enhancing the country’s competitiveness in line with international best practices. So, when we talk about the new Committee, we are not talking about a small procedural footnote. We are talking about a formal bridge between technical examination decisions, administrative review, and the broader protection of innovation in the UAE.
What Changed for Applicants and Interested Parties
Before this structure was clarified, applicants and interested parties often had to navigate a process that could feel fragmented, especially where a Ministry decision affected the fate of a patent, utility model, or industrial design. The law already contemplated grievances and objections, but Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 now provides a more detailed procedural map. For a patent applicant, that means deadlines become easier to track, evidence requirements become harder to ignore, and the review process becomes more predictable. For third parties, such as competitors or commercial partners, the Committee may also be relevant where they are directly affected by a Ministry decision issued under the industrial property framework. That extra clarity matters because intellectual property rights are time-sensitive assets; delay can weaken negotiating power, disrupt investment plans, and make enforcement strategy harder to execute.
Area
Earlier Position
Position Under the New Committee Framework
Review route
Grievance rights existed under the law, but procedural detail was less visible to applicants
Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 sets out formation, procedures, meetings, evidence handling, and decision timelines
Filing period
Applicants had to rely on the underlying law and executive regulations
A grievance must be submitted within 60 working days from notification of the decision
Evidence
Supporting documents were expected, but the process was less clearly structured
The grievance must use the prescribed form and include supporting documents and evidentiary materials
Hearings
Less practical detail publicly available
Parties may be notified of hearings, appear personally or through representatives, and the Committee may proceed in absence
Decision timeline
Less visibility over administrative timing
The Committee must issue a final decision within 60 days from grievance submission
Notification
Less clarity for parties tracking next steps
Final decisions must be served within 15 working days by modern communication means
The biggest practical change is that the Committee creates a recognisable administrative review layer. Article 74 of Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 states that the Committee is competent to decide grievances filed by concerned parties against decisions issued under the Law and Executive Regulations, and it also provides that, subject to the patent re-examination rule, no court action will be accepted unless a grievance has first been filed before the Committee. This makes the Committee more than a courtesy step. It is a gatekeeping stage in the dispute journey, and applicants should treat it with the same seriousness they would give to a court filing. A weak grievance can narrow the story before it reaches the next stage, while a carefully prepared grievance can frame the technical and legal issues in a way that protects the applicant’s position.
Filing a Grievance: Timeline and Requirements
Under Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025, a grievance must be submitted to the Committee within sixty working days from the date the concerned party is notified of the decision. This is one of the most applicant-relevant details in the whole Resolution because patent and industrial property timelines do not forgive casual diary management. If a party misses the filing window, it may lose a valuable opportunity to challenge the decision through the administrative route. The Resolution also states that the grievance must be submitted using the application form prescribed by the Committee and must be accompanied by supporting documents and evidentiary materials. It further allows the Committee to ask either the Ministry or the grievant for additional information, clarifications, documents, or materials connected to the dispute.
In practice, this means a grievance should not be treated as a short objection letter written at the last minute. It should be prepared more like a compact case file: decision under challenge, legal basis, technical explanation, supporting evidence, procedural history, and the remedy being requested. For patent applicants, this may involve claim charts, examiner correspondence, prior art analysis, technical declarations, assignment records, priority documents, translation notes, or expert input depending on the issue. For interested third parties, it may involve showing why they are affected and why the Ministry decision should be reviewed under the industrial property framework. Think of the grievance as the moment where the record starts to harden. If the strongest documents are not submitted early, the party may spend the rest of the dispute trying to repair a file that should have been built correctly from day one.
How the Committee Handles a Case
Once a grievance is received, the Secretary of the Committee must register it, assign it a sequential number, record the date of submission and relevant details in a special register, and issue a receipt confirming that the grievance has been received and registered. This may sound administrative, but it is extremely useful in real disputes because parties often need a clean paper trail showing when the grievance was filed and what was submitted. The Committee can then request further data or documents and set an appropriate deadline for submission. Parties are also notified of the scheduled hearing date, and the Committee may allow them to appear either on its own initiative or at the request of the parties. If a grievant or opposing party fails to appear personally or through a representative, the Committee may still decide the grievance in their absence.
The Resolution also gives the Committee flexibility in how it reviews disputes. It may allow parties to submit new documents or evidence that could materially affect the subject of the grievance, and it may seek assistance from experts or specialists when it considers that appropriate. Those experts do not have voting rights during deliberations, which helps preserve the Committee’s decision-making authority while still allowing it to benefit from technical knowledge. That balance is especially important in patent matters, where the deciding body may need to understand engineering, chemistry, software, life sciences, manufacturing processes, or design functionality before reaching a reasoned view. The Committee may also hold hearings remotely and allow members to attend by modern communication means with the Chairman’s approval, which is a practical feature for a jurisdiction that regularly deals with foreign applicants, international counsel, and cross-border portfolios.
Committee Formation, Impartiality, and Governance
The Committee is chaired by Judge Dr. Abdulrahim Mohammed Al Amoudi of the Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal, with members from the Ministry of Economy and the Department of Economic Development – Abu Dhabi. Its membership term is three years and may be renewed for similar terms by Cabinet resolution. The Resolution also deals with vacancies, continuity of duties after term expiry, and circumstances in which membership may be terminated. These governance details matter because parties need confidence that a grievance body is not ad hoc, vague, or improvised each time a dispute appears. When the legal framework names the chair, identifies the members, and sets a term of office, it gives the process a more institutional character.
The Resolution also includes a conflict-of-interest rule, which is especially important in a specialist IP environment where professionals, experts, public bodies, and private companies may overlap across projects. Each Committee member must disclose any personal, financial, or other relationship that may compromise impartiality with a party submitting a grievance. If such an interest exists, that member must refrain from participating in the hearing, and the Committee issues its decision without that member’s vote. For applicants, this is a quiet but meaningful safeguard. Patent disputes often involve high-value technology, licensing negotiations, and competitive commercial interests, so confidence in impartiality is not a nice-to-have; it is part of the legal value of the system itself.
Decisions, Notifications, and Court Options
One of the strongest features of the new framework is the requirement for a reasoned decision. Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 states that the Committee must issue decisions and recommendations by majority vote, and that its decisions must be reasoned and accurately explained, specifying the grounds and justifications for each decision. The Committee must issue its final decision within sixty days from the date of grievance submission, and the decision must include a summary of the grievance and the rationale on which the decision is based. The Secretary must then serve the final decision on both the grievant and the Ministry’s competent department within fifteen working days from issuance through modern means of communication. This is exactly the kind of procedural discipline that applicants and investors want to see because it gives them a clearer idea of when a disputed issue may move forward.
Court strategy still needs careful legal advice because not every industrial property dispute follows the same path. Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 defines the competent court as the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal and states that no court action will be accepted unless the grievance route has first been used, subject to the specific rule concerning re-examination after grant for patents, utility models, and industrial designs. WIPO’s PCT Applicant’s Guide for the UAE also notes that, in the case of a negative decision of the Office during the national phase, the decision may be appealed to the competent court within sixty days from notification. The practical lesson is simple: do not assume a generic appeal deadline from a summary article. Applicants should identify the exact decision, the right procedural route, the applicable deadline, and whether re-examination, grievance, or court action is the next step.
Why the Committee Matters for Patent Strategy
For patent applicants, the Committee changes how prosecution strategy should be managed after a negative or disputed decision. It is no longer enough to focus only on filing the application and responding to examination reports. Applicants now need a post-decision plan that considers whether to request re-examination, whether to file a grievance, what evidence should be preserved, and how the administrative record may affect later court options. This is particularly important because Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 provides that a patent or utility model certificate is granted if no objection is raised by filing an application for re-examination after grant or filing a grievance within the time limit set by the Executive Regulations. In other words, the post-grant and post-decision period is not dead time; it is a live risk window.
A strong patent strategy should now include a deadline matrix for every UAE industrial property matter. The matrix should track Ministry notifications, publication dates, re-examination windows, grievance deadlines, evidence deadlines, decision dates, and court-related deadlines where applicable. It should also identify who is responsible for collecting technical evidence and who will approve legal arguments before filing. This may sound basic, but many IP disputes are lost in the gaps between technical teams, legal teams, business teams, and outside counsel. The Committee’s 60-working-day filing window gives applicants enough time to prepare properly, but not enough time to be casual. The difference between a rushed grievance and a disciplined grievance may be the difference between keeping an innovation protected and watching a valuable right slip into uncertainty.
Business Impact for UAE Innovation
The Committee arrives at a time when UAE patent activity is becoming more commercially important. WIPO’s latest UAE IP statistical country profile reports 3,598 total patent applications for the UAE in 2024, up 5.7%, with 1,508 patent grants, up 18.2%. The Ministry of Economy and Tourism has also stated that patent applications submitted in the UAE reached approximately 3,622 in 2024, while its Green IP roadmap aims to raise the share of sustainable and environmental innovation patents to 8% of total patent registrations. These numbers tell a simple story: the system is getting busier, and when a system gets busier, dispute resolution has to become more structured. A growing patent environment without a predictable grievance process is like a highway with no clear exits; it may work when traffic is light, but it becomes risky as volume increases.
The UAE is also working to make patent prosecution faster and more aligned with international practice. In July 2025, the Ministry of Economy and Tourism and the United States Patent and Trademark Office signed a Statement of Intent to launch a joint patent grant programme aimed at accelerating patent grant procedures in the UAE. The Ministry described this broader direction as supporting “leadership and competitiveness in innovation and IP rights in the UAE.” That makes the Grievance Committee part of a wider modernisation picture, not an isolated procedural tweak. Faster grants are useful, but faster grants also need credible challenge mechanisms. When speed and review work together, the system becomes more attractive to inventors, universities, investors, manufacturers, and technology companies that need both efficiency and legal certainty.
Practical Checklist for Applicants and Rights Holders
Applicants should treat the Industrial Property Grievance Committee as a serious procedural forum, not as a formality. The first step is to review the Ministry decision immediately and identify the date of notification, because that date may start the 60-working-day grievance clock under Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025. The second step is to decide whether the matter requires re-examination after grant before a grievance can be considered, particularly for patents, utility model certificates, and industrial designs. Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 specifically states that, subject to Article 17(2), the Committee will not consider a grievance relating to registration of those rights unless the concerned party first raises an objection before the ICPR by filing an application for re-examination after grant. This is exactly where applicants should avoid DIY procedural guesses.
A practical applicant file should include the decision under challenge, proof of notification, application details, prosecution history, technical evidence, legal grounds, requested remedy, and any documents showing commercial or technical relevance. Foreign applicants should also make sure their UAE representative is properly authorised, because WIPO’s UAE PCT guidance notes that non-resident applicants must appoint an agent in the UAE. If the case involves a high-value patent family, applicants should coordinate UAE arguments with parallel prosecution or opposition positions in other jurisdictions. Patent files have long memories: a statement made in one country can sometimes influence how competitors frame disputes elsewhere. The cleanest approach is to prepare the grievance as if it may later be read by a court, an investor, a licensee, or a future litigation team.
Conclusion
The establishment of the UAE’s Industrial Property Grievance Committee is a meaningful step in the country’s ongoing IP modernisation journey. It gives applicants and interested parties a more defined administrative process for challenging decisions issued under the industrial property framework, with clear rules around filing, evidence, hearings, expert input, decision-making, and notification. Just as importantly, it gives innovators more confidence that disputed patent and industrial property decisions can be reviewed through a formal structure before court action becomes necessary. For businesses, this is not just a legal update; it is a planning update, because patent value depends heavily on timing, certainty, and the ability to respond when something goes wrong.
The practical message is clear: applicants should prepare early, track deadlines carefully, and treat every Ministry decision as a potential trigger for procedural action. The new Committee does not remove the need for strong technical drafting, careful prosecution, or strategic legal advice. What it does offer is a clearer route for grievances, and that can make the UAE’s IP system more predictable for inventors, founders, universities, R&D teams, and international rights holders. In a market where innovation is moving quickly, predictability is not boring. It is the foundation that lets businesses take bigger, smarter risks.
FAQs
1. What is the official name of the UAE patent appellate body?
The official name used in Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 is the Industrial Property Grievance Committee. Some articles may describe it as an appellate board because it reviews grievances against industrial property decisions, but the official terminology is “Committee.” This distinction is useful because the Committee operates as an administrative grievance body within the UAE industrial property framework rather than as a standalone court. Its procedures, membership, filing rules, and decision timelines are set out in Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025.
2. How long does an applicant have to file a grievance?
A grievance must be submitted within sixty working days from the date the concerned party is notified of the decision. This deadline appears in Article 8 of Cabinet Resolution No. 36 of 2025 and should be tracked carefully from the notification date, not from an internal review date or a later business discussion. The grievance must also be filed using the prescribed form and supported with documents and evidence. Missing the deadline may affect the party’s ability to use the administrative grievance route.
3. Can the Committee ask for more documents?
Yes, the Committee may ask the Ministry or the grievant to submit additional information, clarifications, documents, or other materials related to the dispute. This is important because the first filing may not be the only opportunity to complete the record, but applicants should still submit a strong file from the beginning. The Committee may also allow new evidence if it could materially affect the grievance. In patent matters, that may include technical analysis, prior art materials, declarations, translations, or prosecution history documents depending on the issue.
4. When will the Committee issue its decision?
The Committee must issue its final decision within sixty days from the date the grievance is submitted. The decision must be reasoned, accurately explained, and include the grounds and justifications for the outcome. After the decision is issued, the Secretary must serve it on the grievant and the Ministry’s competent department within fifteen working days using modern means of communication. This gives applicants a more predictable administrative timeline than an open-ended review process.
5. Does the grievance process replace court action?
No, the grievance process does not replace court action in every case, but it may be a required step before court proceedings can be accepted. Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 states that, subject to the specific re-examination rule, no action shall be accepted before the courts unless a grievance has first been filed before the Committee. The same law defines the competent court as the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal. Applicants should therefore take advice on the exact route and deadline that applies to their specific Ministry decision.
