IP Litigation in the DIFC Courts

Author  Jens Cederskjold  Licence CC BY 3.0  Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

The Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC") is a 110-hectare section of Dubai with its own common law legal system administered by English-speaking judges. Its legislation is based on the laws of England and Wales and other common law countries.  On 21 Nov 2019, the Ruler of Dubai enacted the DIFC Intellectual Property Law 2019, which I discussed in my Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law on 11 Dec 2019.  

One of the most interesting provisions of that enactment is the establishment of a Commissioner of Intellectual Property with power to resolve most intellectual property disputes quickly and cheaply.  I discussed the Commissioner's functions and responsibilities in DIFC IP Law Update on 24 Jan 2025.  However, there are likely to be cases that can best be decided by a judge.  These might include actions with complex facts or difficult points of law, claims that require an inquiry into damages or an account of profits or circumstances where justice might be defeated unless an interim injunction can be obtained quickly.  As the Innovation Hub and the AI Campus grow and develop, disputes are likely to arise that require the sort of robust judicial response that is available in London and Singapore.    

The DIFC Courts consist of a Court of First Instance, a Court of Appeal and a Small Claims Tribunal. The Court of First Instance is divided into 4 specialist Divisions, namely a Civil and Commercial Division, a Technology and Construction Division, an Arbitration Division and a Digital Economy Court.  Art 22 (2)  of DIFC Court Law 2004 enables the Court of First Instance to "order an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct or requiring a person to do an act or thing or other order the Court considers appropriate."  Art 36 (1) (a) of The Law of Damages and Remedies 2005 empowers the court to grant interim injunctions,

The Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts 2014 resemble the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR") and contain many similar provisions, but they differ in several ways.  There is no equivalent to CPR Part 63 in the DIFC Court Rules, and the Courts' practice directions do not supplement Parts of the DIFC Court Rules.  Another important difference between IP litigation in the UK and in the DIFC Courts is that the DIFC Intellectual Property Law 2019 does not permit the DIFC Courts to revoke or declare invalid Gulf Co-operation Council or Emirati patents or other registered rights.  It is not yet clear whether the DIFC Courts would reach a similar decision to that of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C‑339/22, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AB EU: C:2025:108, [2025] EUECJ C-339/22, [2025] WLR(D) 306, ECLI:EU: C:2025:108, 25 Feb 2025 where the Court believes such a patent or other IP right to be invalid.

The procedure for obtaining interim injunctions in the DIFC Courts is similar to that of England and Wales.   Applications are launched by an application notice supported by evidence in one or more witness statements, a statement of case verified by a statement of truth or the application notice itself.  A distinction is drawn in the timetable for exchanging evidence between applications that can be heard in less than 2 hours ("ordinary applications") and those that are likely to require more than 2 hours ("heavy applications").  Both appear to be treated as equivalent to "applications by order" in England and Wales.   As in those countries, an applicant for an interim injunction must undertake to the court to pay such damages as the court considers that the applicant should bear.  The court may order an applicant to give security for his or her undertaking.

The DIFC Courts Rules provide for freezing injunctions and search orders to be ordered in appropriate circumstances. The evidence supporting applications for such orders should be made by affidavit rather than in witness statements.   An independent legal representative with experience in executing similar search orders should supervise any search that may be ordered.  Such legal representative should report to the court on the execution of the order after such execution has been carried out.

There is no specialist intellectual property list in Dubai.  The Digital Economy Court probably comes closest. I mentioned that Division and its jurisdiction in DIFC IP Law Update 2025 on 25 Jan 2025. HE Justice Michael Black KC, one of my contemporaries at the Manchester Bar, has charge of that list.

Anyone wishing to discuss this topic should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact page at any time.

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in the DIFC

 

Jane Lambert

On 14 Nov 2019, the Ruler of Dubai proclaimed the DIFC Intellectual Property Law (DIFC Law No. 4 of 2019) ("the IPL"). That legislation does not create a separate body of intellectual property rights for the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC"). It provides for the enforcement of rights subsisting under Emirati federal law in the financial centre.  I have discussed the IPL in the following articles:

• Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law on 11 Dec 2019; 
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Patents and Utility Certificates on 9 Jan 2020;
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Designs on 7 June 2020; 
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Copyright and Neighbouring Rights on 28 June 2020;
• The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Trade Marks and Trade Names on 20 Sept 2020; and
• DIFC Trade Secrecy Law on 7 July 2021.

One of the most interesting provisions of the IPL is the establishment of a Commissioner of Intellectual Property ("the commissioner").  Art 5 of the enactment provides that the IPL and any legislation made for the purpose of that law shall be administered by that commissioner.  He or she has very extensive powers under art 59 of the IPL.

In accordance with art 56 (1) of the IPL, the President of the DIFC has appointed Dr Tarek Hajjiri as the DIFC's first commissioner.   He has been interviewed on Al-Tamimi & Co's YouTube channel (see Mariam Sabet interviews Dr Tarek Hajjiri, Senior Vice President - #INTA202). One of his most important functions is

"receiving and deciding on all complaints or disputes filed in connection with the Law in the DIFC, and imposing fines for non-compliance with this Law and any related Regulations"

under art 59 (3) (a) of the IPL.  Pursuant to art 60 (1) of the law, the DIFC's directors have made the Intellectual Property Regulations ("IPR") to assist him in exercising that function.

Complaints filed with the commissioner must contain the following information:

"(a) full name, address and capacity of the Complainant;
(b) the name and details of the Respondent;
(c) the details of the complaint;
(d) a detailed statement of the alleged facts which the Complainant believes gives rise to the complaint; and
(e) the relief sought by the Complainant."

The complaint should be  supported by the following documents:

"(a) proof of ownership of intellectual property rights or the right to claim protection pursuant to such ownership, which may include patent registration certificates, trademark registration certificates and agreements evidencing ownership; 

(b) if a complaint is filed on behalf of the owner of the intellectual property or the holder of intellectual property rights, a suitable power of attorney; 

(c) any documents or other evidences, including witness statements, confirming that the infringement, misappropriation or conflict occurred within the DIFC; 

(d) proof of payment of the fees in accordance with Regulation 2.3; and 

(e) an undertaking to cover any costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioner (or his delegate) to investigate the complaint."

Unless the commissioner is of opinion that notifying a respondent of a complaint may pose a risk to the investigation of the complaint or the preservation of evidence relating to the complaint, he must notify the respondent in writing of the details of a complaint filed against him or her, within 10 business days of receiving the complaint or any additional documents, information or other evidence that the commissioner may have requested, whichever may be later.

A respondent has the right to respond to a complaint within 10 business days of receiving it or such other time as the commissioner may allow.  The commissioner should provide the complainant with a copy of the response together with any supporting documents on which the respondent may rely.  The complainant may then file a reply to any further points raised by the Respondent in his or her response. Any such reply must be filed by the complainant within 10 business days of receiving the respondent’s response from the commissioner or such other time as the commissioner may allow. The commissioner must provide the respondent with a copy of any reply that may be submitted by the complainant.

The commissioner may invite one or more of the parties to a meeting to discuss the dispute if he is minded to issue a direction.  He may also visit the respondent's premises with (or in some cases without) notice to inspect or collect evidence.  The parties may be represented in any of these proceedings by a legal practitioner registered on Part I or Part II of the DIFC Courts' Register of Legal Practitioners. My chambers are listed in Part II of that register and my friend Arann Dowling-Hussey who is also a member of the Irish Bar practises in the DIFC courts.  Other members of the English Bar including intellectual property specialists can qualify easily to practise in the DIFC.

After considering a complaint and completing all the investigations and inspections that the commissioner may deem necessary, he must issue a direction in accordance with art 66 of the IPL and art 3.1 of the IPR. If the commissioner is satisfied that a person has violated the IPL, he may issue a direction with 1 or more of the following measures: 

(i) order the respondent to refrain from the violation and carry out all necessary acts to comply with the IPL; 

(ii) request the DIFC Registrar of Companies to suspend temporarily the respondent's DIFC licence; 

(iii) order confiscation of all materials, goods, tools, machines, equipment, signs and advertisements related to the violation and order the transfer, storage and destruction of the same, at the expense of the respondent; 

(iv) impose fines in accordance with art 66 (1) and Sched 3 of the IPL; or 

(v) in case of a repeated infringement, request the DIFC Registrar of Companies to revoke the DIFC licence of the respondent.   The commissioner may also impose up to double the fines stipulated in Sched 3 pursuant to art 66 (2) of the IPL

If the commissioner is not satisfied that a person has violated the Law, he may issue a direction rejecting the complaint.   Alternatively, if the commissioner is unable to decide whether a violation has been committed, he will issue a direction requesting the parties to refer the matter to the DIFC Court of First Instance ("the court").

Should a respondent fail to comply with a direction the commissioner may apply to the court for an order to compel him or her to do so under art 66 (5) of the IPL  Any person aggrieved by the direction of the commissioner may file a request to the court to review the direction within 15 days of receiving a notice of direction from the commissioner.

My Deputy Senior Clerk, Stephen Somerville, has recently returned from a short visit to Dubai where he met several of my readers including some who practise before the DIFC Courts. He was accompanied by Arran and other members of chambers who were there for Dubai Arbitration Week 2023.  Those members have penned Decree No 34 of 2021 Concerning the Dubai International Arbitration Centre: Two Years On: Some Practical Issues which discusses recent changes to arbitration law in that emirate.

Anyone wishing to discuss my article or any of the topics mentioned in it may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

DIFC Trade Secrecy Law

Jane Lambert

 

In November 2019 the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC") enacted a new intellectual property law (see DIFC Intellectual Property Law (Law No 4 of 2019)). I described its structure in my Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law on 11 Dec 2019 and discussed its provisions relating to patents and utility certificates, industrial drawings and designs, copyrights and neighbouring rights and trade marks and trade names in subsequent articles. In this article, I discuss the provisions relating to trade secrets (arts 52 to 55). There was already an action for breach of confidence under the Law of Obligations which I discussed in DIFC Law of Confidence on 27 Jan 2011.

According to the table to para 3 of Sched. 1 of the Intellectual Property Law, the term "Trade Secret" includes the following:

"all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, programs, devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialised physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing

Art 52 of the Law provides that a Trade Secret can be protected when it meets each of the following criteria:

"(a) the information involved constitutes a Trade Secret, or part thereof; 

(b) the information derives actual or potential economic value from not being generally known to other persons who may obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and 

(c) the person lawfully in control of the information has taken reasonable measures to keep the information a secret."

 This is not dissimilar to art 2 (1) of  Directive (EU) 2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 15.6.2016 L 157/1) ("the Trade Secrets Directive"):

"(1) ‘trade secret’ means information which meets all of the following requirements: 

(a) it is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; 

(b) it has commercial value because it is secret; 

(c) it has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret."

As in the Trade Secrets Directive, the owner is deemed to be the person lawfully in control of the Trade Secret and he or she is defined as "a  person lawfully in control of the Trade Secret is every person having the right of its disclosure, use and storage" (see art 53 (1) (a) and art 53 (2)).  Such person has "the right to licence (sic), transfer, s4 hare, or assign lawful control of the Trade Secret to any person in return for a consideration or otherwise" under art 53 (1) (b) and also "to prevent any person from misappropriation of the Trade Secret, and shall have the right to claim compensation for any damage caused due to misappropriation thereof by any person" under art 53 (3).

Art 54 provides that the following acts shall constitute misappropriation of a Trade Secret and prohibited under the Law: 

"(a) the acquisition of a Trade Secret by Improper Means; 

(b) the disclosure or use of a Trade Secret by a person who used Improper Means to acquire knowledge of the Trade Secret; 

(c) the acquisition, disclosure or use of a Trade Secret by a person who at the relevant time knows, or ought to have known, that the knowledge of the Trade Secret was: 

(i) derived from or through a person who had utilised Improper Means to acquire it; 

(ii) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 

(iii) derived from or through a person who owed a duty, towards the person lawfully in control of the Trade Secret, to maintain its secrecy or limit its use. 

(d) the disclosure or use of a Trade Secret by a person who knows, or ought to have known, that it was a Trade Secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or by mistake."

"Improper Means" is defined in the above-mentioned table to include "fraud, forgery, theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a legal or contractual duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means."   

The following acts, however, are permitted by art 55:

"(a) the discovery, acquisition or use of information from public sources, or known and available information; 

(b) the discovery, acquisition or use of information as a result of scientific research, innovation, invention, development, modification and improvement exerted by persons independent of the person lawfully in control of the Trade Secret; 

(c) the discovery of information pursuant to a licence, transfer, sharing, or assignment of the information; or 

(d) the discovery of information through reverse engineering."

This is an important branch of the law because every invention starts life as a trade secret and there are some technologies that can only be protected by trade secrecy law.  In the next few days, I shall write a short article with some practical tips on how inventors, entrepreneurs and others can safeguard secret technical or commercial information.  It will be angled for a British audience but it should apply equally to the DIFC.

In the meantime, anyone who wishes to discuss this article or trade secrecy and confidentiality generally may call me during UK office hours on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form. 

The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Trade Marks and Trade Names

Author Mostafameraji Licence CC BY-SA 4.0  Source Wikipedia Tourism in Dubai

 

Jane Lambert

Last November the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC") enacted a new intellectual property law (see DIFC Intellectual Property Law (Law No 4 of 2019)).  I described its structure in my Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law on 11 Dec 2019 and discussed its provisions relating to patents and utility certificates, industrial drawings and designs and copyrights and neighbouring rights in subsequent articles.  In this article, I discuss the provisions relating to trade marks (arts 43 to 49) and trade names (arts 50 and 51).   There was already an action for passing off under the Law of Obligations which I discussed in The DIFC Law of Passing Off on 7 April 2011.

What is a Trade Mark?

The table in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the IP Law defines a trade mark as:

"any signs or combination of signs or names, words, signatures, letters, numbers, Drawings, Symbols, addresses, Hallmarks, stamps, pictures, vignettes, notices, packages, colour or combination of colours, or any other mark or combination of marks having a distinctive form and used or intended to be used to distinguish goods, products or services. Sound and smell can be considered as trade marks."

That is broadly consistent with art 2 of Federal Law No. 37 of 1992 on Trademarks (as amended by Law No. 19 of 2000 and Law No. 8 of 2002).

Registration
The DIFC Intellectual Property Law makes no provision for registering trade marks in the DIFC.  Instead, art 43 of the Law provides that a trade mark registered under the Federal trade mark law is recognized for the purposes of the DIFC IP Law and is valid and enforceable in the DIFC.  "Federal trade mark law" is defined in the table in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 as "UAE Law No. 37 of 1992 as amended by UAE Law No. 8 of 2002 and its implementing regulations, any other future amendment or Federal Law with respect to trade marks."  I have already discussed that statute including registration in UAE Trade Mark Law on 20 May 2013.  According to the WIPO, the UAE is not yet a party to either the Madrid Agreement or Protocol.  It appears from Saba Al Sultani and Rob Deans that trade mark law has been harmonized among the Gulf Cooperation Council states but there is not yet a unitary GCC trade mark on the lines of the GCC patent or EU trade mark (see Al Sutani and Read GCC Trademark Law Coming Soon Sept 2014 WIPO Magazine).

Prohibited Marks
The following marks will not be recognized in the DIFC unless they are registered under Federal trade mark law:

"(a) a mark which is not distinctive; 

(b) a mark consisting of a generic name used in relation to goods, products or services; 

(c) a mark that contains one or more familiar drawings or common pictures of goods; 

(d) a mark that is contrary to the public order or morality of the UAE; 

(e) a mark containing the insignia of the UAE, any governmental body in the UAE, flags and other symbols pertaining to the UAE (or any emirate thereof), Arab or international organisations (or any agencies thereof), or any foreign country except with the authorisation of those parties, as well as any imitation of such insignia, flags or symbols; 

(f) a symbol of the Red Crescent or the Red Cross, or any other similar symbol or mark which is an imitation thereof; 

(g) a mark which is identical or similar to a symbol of a purely religious nature; 

(h) a geographical name, where the use thereof may cause confusion as to the origin or source of the goods or services; 

(i) a name, surname, photograph or emblem of a third party, unless his, or his legal successors’, prior consent has been obtained. 

(j) a mark containing a title of honour, where the person applying for registration cannot prove that he is lawfully entitled to its use; 

(k) a mark which may mislead the public or which is identical or confusingly similar to a mark or marks of another party, even though not registered, or which contains false information as to the origin or the source of products or services, or about their other characteristics, as well as a mark containing an imaginary, imitated or forged trade name; 

(l) a mark owned by a person with whom it is illegal to deal with under Federal Law or Dubai Law. 

(m) a mark which, if used for certain classes of products or services, would diminish the value of other products or services distinguished by such mark; 

(n) a mark containing the word or expression: "Patent", "Patented", "registered", "registered Design", "copyright" or "Imitation is forgery" or similar words and expressions; 

(o) a mark containing national and foreign decorations, coins and paper currency; or 

(p) a mark that constitutes a translation or imitation of a well-known mark or the main part thereof or other previously registered mark, where the registration would confuse consumers as to the identity or origin of the goods or services that are distinguished by the mark or similar goods or services" (art 44).

The Commissioner of Intellectual Property ("the Commissioner") may levy a $5,000 fine upon anyone using a mark that falls within sub-paragraphs (d) to (p) pursuant to art 48 (1) and art 59 (see my Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law of 11 Dec 2019).

Well Known Marks
Art 45 (1) of the DIFC Intellectual Property Law protects well-known trade marks of international reputation ("well-known marks") that surpass their country of its origin and acquires fam in a relevant sector among consumers in the UAE. The decision as to whether a mark is or is not a "well-known mark"appears to be one for the court.   In making that decision, art 45 (2) enables the following factors can be taken into account{

"(a) the degree of public knowledge or recognition in a relevant sector; 

(b) the duration, extent and geographical area of use; 

(c) the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the goods or services to which the trademark applies; 

(d) the duration and geographical area of any registrations, or any applications for registrations, to the extent that they reflect use or recognition of the trademark; 

(e) the record of successful enforcement of rights in the trademark, in particular, the extent to which the trademark was recognised as well known by competent authorities; or 

(f) the commercial value associated with the trademark."

Nobody may use a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trade mark in the DIFC (art 45 (3)).  Transgressors of this rule can be fined US$15,000 by the Commissioner.  

Owners of well known marks also have the following rights of action under art 45 (4) and (5):

• the right to prevent any party from using in the DIFC identical or confusingly similar marks, to distinguish goods or services that are not identical to those in respect of which, the well-known trade mark is registered, if: 
• the use of the mark indicates a possible connection between goods or services and the owner of the well-known trademark; and 
• the interests of the owner of the well-known trade mark are likely to be damaged by such use; and
• the right, to prevent another person’s commercial use of a mark or trade name in the DIFC, if such use began after a well-known trade mark has become well-known and the use of the mark or trade name causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the well-known trade mark.

The Commissioner can fine anyone using a trade mark in a way that may cause dilution to a well-known trade mark US$15,000.

Trade Mark Owner's Rights of Action
Art 46 confers upon the proprietor of a trade mark that is registered in the United Arab Emirates the exclusive right to exclude others from the import, export, use, sale, offer for sale, advertising, transit, distribution or use in any manner of goods or services distinguished by an identical or confusingly similar trade mark 

Defences
Art 49 provides that the following acts shall not infringe a trade mark or well-known mark:

"(a) to indicate the intended purpose of the goods or a service related thereto, provided that such use is necessary and in good faith;
(b) in news reporting, news commentary or parody; or
(c) by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify competing goods or services, provided that such use is in good faith and in accordance to honest practices in commerce."

Should a defendant allege that the trade mark in suit is invalid or should be cancelled for other reasons, art 48 (2) requires him or hee to must issue proceedings in a court with jurisdiction to cancel the registration and satisfy the DIFC court that there are clear and solid grounds for such proceedings.  If he or she does so, the infringement proceedings in the DIFC will be stayed until the court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the cancellation claim.  If the defendant does not do so, the infringement proceedings in the DIFC will continue.

Punishable Infringements
The following infringements are punishable with the following fines:

• US$30,000 for "counterfeiting or imitating" a registered trade mark, or a well-known trade mark, with the intent or effect of misleading the public (art 48 (1) (b));
• US$25,000 for unlawfully using a registered trade mark or a well-known trade mark without the proprietor's consent (art 48 (1) (c));
• US25,000 for unlawfully using a trade mark that is confusingly similar to a registered trade mark with the intent to, or effect of, causing confusion and misleading the public (art 45 (1) (d))'
• US$25,000 for knowingly selling, offering for sale or possessing with purpose of selling goods or services bearing a trade mark, or well-known trade mark, that is counterfeited, imitated or unlawfully used (art 48 (1) (e),

Licensing
Art 47 (1) permits the owner of a trade make by a written instrument, grant a licence to any person to use the trade mark for all or part of the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.   The owner of the trade mark may also use the mark contemporaneously with the licensee unless otherwise agreed in writing (art 47 (2).  Such a licence is known as a sole licence as opposed to exclusive licences which can be used by the licensee to the exclusion of the licensor and all other persons and non-exclusive licences that can be used by the licensor and any number of licensees.   

A licensee may not assign its rights to any other party, or grant a sub-licence in respect thereof, unless expressly allowed by the terms of the licence agreement (art 47 (3)).

Unless the licence agreement provides otherwise, a licensee is entitled to call on the owner of the trade mark to take infringement proceedings in respect of any matter which affects the licensee’s interests by virtue of art 47 (5) If the owner refuses to act in accordance with a request by the licensee, or fails to do so within two (2) months of being called upon to do so, the licensee may bring such proceedings in his or her own name, as if he or she were the registered owner of the trade mark.

Any act of a licensee in contravention of a licence agreement shall constitute trade mark infringement pursuant to art 47 (4) and may be punished by the Commissioner with a US$30,000 finr.

Trade Names
A trade name is defined in the table to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 "as every name used in trade to designate particular business and registered with the competent authority."  Art 50 requires of persons registered, incorporated, licenced or permitted to operate in the DIFC to comply with the provisions of the Operating Law (DIFC Law No 7 of 2018) in relation to trade names, and to display such names conspicuously displayed on the façade of their business premises in the DIFC. Failure to display the name in accordance with the law attracts a fine of US$5,000.   Art 51 enables the Commissioner to resolve any conflict between a trade name registered in the DIFC and a trade mark, or a well-known Trademark, which is likely to damage the interests of a person, cause confusion or mislead the public.   Failure to comply with an order of the Commissioner to change a trade name in conflict with a trade mark may be punished with a fine of US$10,000.

False Claims
Art 48 (1) (f) prohibits falsely representing that a mark is registered as a trade mark, or as a well-known trade mark, or making any statement with the intent or the effect of leading others to such a conclusion.  The Commissioner can impose a US$5,000 fine for such misconduct.

Comment
Because DIFC law differs from English and EU trade mark law in a number of important respects, particular care should be taken in drafting a trade mark licence or assignment or a franchising, distribution or other agreement to be governed by DIFC law or likely to affect the DIFC.   Should it be necessary to enforce a trade mark or resist enforcement proceedings in the DIFC courts, members of the bar of England and Wales in good standing can obtain quickly and easily the right to appear before those tribunals. Actions to cancel UAE trade marks will have to be undertaken by Emirati lawyers.

Anyone wishing to discuss this artiucle or DIFC law generally should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal UK business hours or send me a message through my comtact form;