DIFC IP Law Update 2025

Dubai Creek

Author Aravind Parameswaran Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

As a result of such initiatives as the Innovation Hub and the Metaverse Platform, new products and services are being developed in the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC") in such technologies as fin-tech, virtual reality and artificial intelligence. They will require legal protection in the DIFC and beyond.  That is not as straightforward in the DIFC as it is in the rest of Dubai because the DIFC has its own legal system. It is for that reason that the Ruler of Dubai proclaimed the DIFC Intellectual Property Law (DIFC Law No. 4 of 2019) on 14 Nov 2019.

That law does not establish any IP rights for the DIFC as such.  It implements the existing intellectual property laws of the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") in the DIFC and provides for their enforcement.  These are:

• the Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2021 on Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights; 
• the Federal Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Regulation and Protection of Industrial Property Rights; 
• the Federal Law No. 17 of 2009 on the Protection of New Plant Varieties; and 
• the Federal Law No. 36 of 2021 on Trademarks.

The relationship between those federal enactments and DIFC Intellectual Property Law is explained in my article Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law which I wrote on 11 Dec 2019.

In that article, I observed that:

"The most interesting provisions of the new Law relate to the Commissioner of Intellectual Property, Art 5 provides that the Law and any legislation made for the purpose of that Law shall be administered by the Commissioner."

The first Commissioner was Dr Tarek Hajjiri and he gave a very interesting interview to Mariam Sabet on YouTube at the INTA virtual conference in 2021.  Dr Hajjiri held that appointment until 2023 and his successor is Katherine Nixon.

I noted that the Commissioner has very extensive powers under art 59 (3) of the DIFC Intellectual Property Law in my article.  Art 59 (3) (a) requires him or her to receive and decide on all complaints or disputes filed in connection with the law in the DIFC, and to impose fines for non-compliance with the Law and any related regulations.  Drafting those regulations and submitting them to the DIFC Directors was another of the Commissioner's responsibilities,  The DIFC Intellectual Property Regulations came into force on 5 July 2021. 

As I stated in The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Patents and Utility Certificates on 9 Jan 2020, anyone seeking a patent for the DIFC may apply to the Gulf Cooperation Council Patent Office for a GCC patent or to the federal Ministry of Economy for a UAE patent.  I wrote about GCC patents in Patents: Gulf Co-operation Council on 21 Jan 2011.  The Ministry of Economy is also the appropriate authority for the registration of utility certificates, trade marks, industrial designs and the layout of integrated circuits that apply to the DIFC.  The UAE is party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") and the Madrid Protocol.

IP rights that do not have to be registered with the UAE Ministry of Economy include copyrights, rights in performances and other neighbouring rights and the right to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of trade secrets.  I discussed those rights in The New DIFC Intellectual Property Law - Copyright and Neighbouring Rights on 28 June 2020 and DIFC Trade Secrecy Law on 7 July 2021.  Two IP rights that predate the new Law are the rights to enforce an obligation of confidence under art 37 of the Law of Obligations DIFC Law No. 5 of 2005 and the right to bring an action for passing off under art 38.. I wrote about the duty of confidence in DIFC Law of Confidence on 27 Jan 2021 and The DIFC Law of Passing off on 7 April 2011.

A rights owner who believes that his or her right has been infringed has the choice of complaining to the Commissioner under art 59 (3) (a) of the DIFC Intellectual Property Law and art 2 or bringing an infringement action in the Court of First Instance.   By far the cheaper and less formal procedure is to complain to the Commissioner.  Complainants complete a simple form and pay an initial fee of US$500. By contrast, the fees for issuing a claim form range from US$1,500 to US$130,000 depending on the value of the claim.  The Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear claims under the Law but not for breach of confidence or passing off.  The Court, on the other hand, can grant interim injunctions including search orders and freezing injunctions.  It can also conduct inquiries as to damages and accounts of profits. Most complainants, particularly startups and small and medium enterprises, will complain to the Commissioner and the DIFC has prepared a helpful guide to assist them,  Those with urgent high-value claims are likely to prefer the courts.

Although there is no intellectual property division in the Court of First Instance the Technology and Construction Division will hear claims relating to the design, supply and/or installation of computers, computer software and related network and information technology systems and services under Rule 56 (3) (5) of the DIFC Court Rules. Similarly, the Digital Economy Court will hear claims involving:

"(1) fintech;
(2) digital assets, including the digital environment, platform or system in which a digital asset exists or may exist;
(3) distributed ledger technology and blockchains including applications based on blockchain technology;
(4) substantial or complex databases;
(5) artificial intelligence and any devices or components of devices whether integrated or not that are dependent on or controlled by artificial intelligence;
(6) data stored digitally including on cloud or other remote platforms, including distributed ledger technology;
(7) e-commerce, online intermediaries, digital payment platforms or marketplaces which include virtual asset service providers in relation to: exchange between virtual currencies; exchange between virtual and fiat currencies; the safe-keeping or administration of virtual assets; or, enabling participation in financial services connected to the offer or sale of virtual assets;
(8) interactions and transactions within virtual reality and the Web3 economy, including digital peer-to-peer transactions;
(9) the application of automatic dispute resolution processes;
(10) decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs), decentralised finance vehicles (DeFi) and decentralised applications (DApps);
(11) the validity of digital signatures and digital identification and verification systems;
(12) the design, supply and /or installation of computers, computer software and related network and information technology systems and services;
(13) cyber-physical systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles, 3D printing technologies, and robotics;
(14) intellectual property claims arising out of or in relation to any of the above claims;
(15) insurance claims arising out of or in relation to any of the above claims;
(16) claims under the DIFC Data Protection Law (Law 5 of 2020); and
(17) any combination of the above claims."

under Rule 58 (7).

As all the IP rights enjoyed in the DIFC except the obligation of confidence and the law of passing off are established under federal law it is conceivable that conflicts will arise between rights existing in one system and those existing in the other.   The Ruler of Dubai jas recently established a Conflicts of Jurisdiction Tribunal to resolve such disputes.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Expo 2020 Dubai Association Rights

Author SumikashaC Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia 

Jane Lambert

Expo 2020 Dubai opened on 1 Oct 2021. It should have taken place between 20 Oct 2020 and 10 April 2021 but, like the Tokyo Olympics, it was postponed for a year because of the pandemic.  As it happens, International Expos have a lot in common with the Olympic Games. They attract visitors from all parts of the world. They require lavish sponsorship.  They are regulated by ithe Bureau International des Expositions much in the way that the Games are regulated by the International Olympic Committee.

Like the Olympics and other major sporting events, their funding is vulnerable to ambush marketing.  The booklet, Expo 2020 Dubai Brand Protection Guidelines, describes ambush marketing as "the act of creating a false or unauthorized association with an event, whether intentional or not." It effectively gives worldwide publicity to the ambushers for nothing.

The right to associate with a major sporting event or Expo is called an "association right" and it is regarded as an intellectual property right (see para 16.1 (6) of the Part 63 Practice Direction).  I discussed the legislation that protected the rights of the International Olympic Committee and the London Organizing Committee in Olympics Association Right and London Olympics Association Right on 31 July 2012 in NIPC Law.  Similar legislation has been enacted for the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham in 2022 which I mentioned in Guidance on Birmingham Commonwealth Games Association Right on 10 Aug 2021 in NIPC West Midlands.

The marks that are protected in the United Arab Emirates include the composite word and device marls of the Bureau International des Expositions and Expo 2020 Dubai. Images of those marks appear on pages 11 to 13 and 16 of the booklet. The booklet suggests that neither the Emirati nor the Dubai government has enacted special legislation to protect those marks or association rights. The intellectual property rights that are mentioned on page 19 are trade marks and copyright. I discussed the relevant legislation in UAE Trade Mark Law on 30 May 2013 and copyright and related rights on 4 Jan 2012 and 11 Feb 2012.

The booklet does not mention the courts in which infringement proceedings would be brought. It is assumed that these will be the civil courts in Dubai. As an intellectual property law has been enacted for the Dubai International Financial Centre. it may also be possible for sponsors to seek relief in the Centre's English speaking common law courts (see  Introduction to, and Overview of, the New DIFC Intellectual Property Law 11 Dec 2019).  An advantage of that jurisdiction is that the DIFC provides a remedy for passiong off (see The DIFC Law of Passing-Off  7 April 2012).

Changing the subject, almost every country in the world seems to be represented with its own pavilion in Dubai including very small states such as Monaco and the Holy See.  The British pavilion seems particularly lavish.   A day ticket to the Expo costs 95 UAE dirhams which is just under £20 and children, students, seniors and "people of determination" get in for free.  That compares very favourably to the Roman remains in Bath, an important tourist attraction in this country. 

Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on  +44 (0)20 7504 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form. 

The DIFC Law of Passing Off

In my article on the DIFC law of confidence of 27 Jan 2011 I wrote:

"The DIFC (Dubai International Financial Centre) is like a little bit of London in the Gulf. Covering an area of 45 hectares - slightly smaller than Kensington Gardens - it is a free zone for the banking, insurance, trading and other financial services industries with its own legal system. As I said in my article on The DIFC Courts, the interesting attribute of this legal system is that the laws are in English and its courts apply the common law."

The law of confidence is one of two areas of intellectual property law for which there is legislation in the DIFC. The other area is the law of passing off. Both derive from the same source, namely the Law of Obligations.

Art 38 (1) of that law provides:

"A defendant is liable to a claimant if:

(a) the claimant's goods, services or business have acquired a goodwill or reputation in the market and are known by some distinguishing feature;

(b) the defendant makes a misrepresentation which confuses or deceives persons in relation to the goods, services or business of the claimant, or is likely to do so; and

(c) the claimant suffers or is likely to suffer damage as a result of that belief."

Art 40 (1) gives "misrepresentation" the same meaning as in contract law save that a statement made without regard for its truthfulness which is in fact untrue and which induces the representee to enter into a contract, whether or not that was the intention of the representor, shall be a misrepresentation for these purposes. Instances of confusion or deception include the reasonable belief that

(a) the defendant's goods, services or business are the goods, services or business of the claimant, or vice versa;

(b) the claimant's goods or services of one class, quality, condition or state are of another class, quality, condition or state;

(c) the defendant's goods or services belong to a class of goods or services with a discrete reputation, when they do not; and

(d) goods are covered by the claimant's guarantee when they are not so covered.

Art 38 is clearly derived from the Lord Oliver's speech in Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and Others [1990] 1 WLR 491, [1990] 1 All ER 873, [1990] UKHL 12, [1990] RPC 341:

"The law of passing off can be summarised in one short general proposition - no man may pass off his goods as those of another. More specifically, it may be expressed in terms of the elements which the plaintiff in such an action has to prove in order to succeed. These are three in number. First, he must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying "get-up" (whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or packaging) under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognised by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff's goods or services. Secondly, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the plaintiff. Whether the public is aware of the plaintiff's identity as the manufacturer or supplier of the goods or services is immaterial, as long as they are identified with a particular source which is in fact the plaintiff. For example, if the public is accustomed to rely upon a particular brand name in purchasing goods of a particular description, it matters not at all that there is little or no public awareness of the identity of the proprietor of the brand name. Thirdly, he must demonstrate that he suffers or, in a quia timet action, that he is likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant's misrepresentation that the source of the defendant's goods or services is the same as the source of those offered by the plaintiff."

Art 38 (2) adds that it is not necessary for the purpose of art 38 that the persons confused or deceived should be aware of the claimant's identity, provided that they are accustomed to the claimant's goods, services or business. It is spelt out in art 38 (3) that it is no defence that the defendant did not intend to cause deception or confusion. A defendant is liable under art 39 if he knowingly assists or facilitates passing off by another person.