Introduction

In a significant ruling that reinforces the UAE’s commitment to protecting intellectual property rights, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation recently dismissed an appeal in a high-profile trademark infringement case (Case No. 74-2025). This case offers valuable insights into how UAE courts approach trademark protection, particularly in disputes involving international brands operating primarily through e-commerce channels. This blog post examines the case’s key aspects and its implications for businesses operating in the UAE.

Case Background

The dispute arose when a globally recognized brand (the respondent) discovered that a local company (the appellant) was operating a physical store in Abu Dhabi displaying the respondent’s registered trademarks on its storefront, interior design, and products. The respondent, which had registered its trademarks with the UAE Ministry of Economy and Trade, alleged that the appellant was not authorized to use these marks and was engaging in unfair competition.

What makes this case particularly interesting is the respondent’s business model: unlike many global brands, it operates exclusively through online channels (its own app and website) rather than physical retail locations. This strategic choice, made for marketing and promotional reasons, is central to its brand identity and business operations.

Legal Journey

The case progressed through the UAE judicial system as follows:

1- Initial Filing: The respondent filed case No. 299 of 2024 with the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court, seeking injunctive relief against the unauthorized use of its trademarks.

2- First Instance Decision: The court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering:

• Cessation of all activities infringing upon the respondent’s registered trademarks
• Removal of the appellant’s trade name from commercial registries in Abu Dhabi and throughout the UAE
• Prohibition on selling or displaying products bearing the disputed trademarks
• Removal of all promotional materials using the protected marks

3- Appeal: The appellant challenged this decision through Appeal No. 1441 of 2024, which was rejected on December 18, 2024, upholding the original ruling.

4- Cassation Appeal: The appellant then filed a further appeal with the Court of Cassation on January 17, 2025. However, while the appellant paid the judicial fees, they failed to pay the required security deposit despite being notified on January 21, 2025, resulting in the appeal being declared inadmissible.

Legal Analysis

Procedural Grounds for Dismissal

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal based on procedural grounds under Article 179 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law, which requires both filing fees and a security deposit to be paid within specified timeframes. This highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in UAE litigation.

Substantive Trademark Protection Issues

While the Cassation Court did not address the substantive aspects of the case due to the procedural dismissal, the lower courts’ decisions reflect several important legal principles:

1. Protection of E-Commerce Business Models: The courts recognized and protected the exclusive online distribution model of the respondent, acknowledging that companies may strategically choose not to operate physical stores while still maintaining full trademark protection.

2. Consumer Confusion: The courts acknowledged that the appellant’s unauthorized use of the trademarks created confusion among consumers who might believe they were purchasing authentic products from an authorized retailer

3. Comprehensive Remedies: The courts granted broad remedies, including not only injunctive relief but also the removal of the infringing trade name from official registries, demonstrating the UAE’s robust approach to trademark enforcement.

Implications for Businesses

This case provides several important lessons for businesses operating in the UAE:

For International Brands:

Register Trademarks Proactively: The respondent’s success was predicated on having properly registered its trademarks in the UAE, emphasizing the importance of formal registration.

Monitor the Market: Regular monitoring for potential infringement is essential, particularly for brands that don’t maintain a physical presence in the market.

Document Infringement Thoroughly: The case demonstrates the importance of comprehensive documentation of alleged infringement activities.

For Local Businesses:

Due Diligence on Brand Use: Before using any brand elements, conduct thorough due diligence to avoid inadvertent infringement.

Respect Exclusive Distribution Models: The fact that a brand doesn’t have physical stores doesn’t mean its trademarks are available for use.

Comply with Procedural Requirements: The appellant’s case was dismissed on procedural grounds, highlighting the importance of strictly adhering to all aspects of UAE litigation procedures.

Conclusion

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Case 74-2025 reinforces the UAE’s strong stance on trademark protection and highlights the judiciary’s recognition of diverse business models, including those relying exclusively on e-commerce. The case demonstrates that trademark owners can successfully protect their intellectual property rights in the UAE, regardless of whether they maintain a physical presence in the country.

For businesses operating in or entering the UAE market, this case serves as both a reminder of the robust intellectual property protection available in the jurisdiction and a warning about the consequences of trademark infringement. It also underscores the importance of understanding and strictly following procedural requirements when engaging with the UAE legal system.

As the UAE continues to position itself as a global business hub, this judicial approach to intellectual property protection will likely strengthen its appeal to international brands concerned about safeguarding their valuable trademarks and business models.

Having said that, contact Khairallah Advocates & Legal Consultants and benefit from our free 30-min legal consultation.