Administrative Appeal No. 19 of 2026 - Trademark

Wednesday session, corresponding to February 11, 2026

Presided over by Judge Dawood Ibrahim Abu Al-Shawarib, President of the Chamber

And the membership of Judges Dr. Hassan Mohamed Hassan Hind and Khaled Mustafa Hassan

(1-4) Trademarks "What constitutes a trademark and what does not" "Registration of a famous trademark and its purpose". Court "Trial Court: The authority of the trial judge in assessing the degree of similarity between two trademarks".

(1) What constitutes a trademark and what does not. Its basis. Articles (2), (3) of Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021.

(2) Trademark. A means to distinguish products, goods, and services belonging to the trademark owner, whether due to their manufacture, selection, trade, or offer for sale. The difference between trademarks achieves the purpose of eliminating confusion among the public, so they do not fall into confusion and misrepresentation. The existence of similarity between a previously registered mark and another mark for which registration is sought is a bar to registering the new mark. The criterion for distinguishing a trademark and preventing its similarity is the general image that is imprinted in the consumer's mind and prevents confusion, not merely its inclusion of letters, symbols, or images that the other mark contains. Basis thereof. Article (4) of Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021.

(3) The assessment of the degree of similarity between two trademarks that would lead to deceiving the public of consumers. A matter of fact independently determined by the trial judge. Provided. That he bases his judgment on logical reasons and evidence established in the records.

(4) The established difference between the trademarks of the appellant company "Koshary and Sweets Mr. Hanafy" and the respondent company "Sayed Hanafy" in all elements except for the element of the word "Hanafy", which is a common name that cannot be monopolized or claimed for exclusive rights. Furthermore, there is no possibility of confusion or ambiguity for the public of consumers between them due to the difference in the general image imprinted in the mind for each. The effect of this. Accepting the appellant company's trademark registration request. The appealed judgment's contradiction of this view. The judgment is therefore flawed.

---

The Ruling

The appealed judgment and its decision to dismiss the lawsuit requesting the annulment of the Grievance Committee's decision to refuse the registration request is a misapplication of the law and a flawed reasoning, which requires its reversal and referral.

1- It is established by the text of Articles (2) and (3) of Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021 regarding Trademarks that a trademark is anything that takes a distinctive form of names, words, signatures, letters, or symbols. A trademark or part of it shall not be considered and may not be registered as such if it is identical or similar to a mark previously filed or registered by others for the same goods or services or for related goods or services if the use of the mark sought to be registered would create an impression of a link between it and the goods or services of the owner of the registered trademark or would harm his interests.

2- It is established according to the text of Article (4) of the aforementioned decree-law that it states: "1- A famous trademark that has surpassed the borders of the country where it was registered to other countries for identical or similar goods or services may not be registered except upon a request from the owner of the famous trademark or with his consent. 2- In determining whether a trademark is famous, the extent of its recognition by the relevant public as a result of its promotion, the duration of its registration or use, the number of countries where it was registered or became famous, its value, or the extent of its impact on the promotion of goods or services that the famous trademark is used to distinguish shall be taken into account. 3- Famous trademarks may not be registered to distinguish goods or services that are not identical or similar to those distinguished by these marks in the following two cases: a- If the use of the mark indicates a connection between the goods or services sought to be distinguished and the goods or services of the owner of the famous trademark. b- If the use of the mark is likely to harm the interests of the owner of the famous trademark." The effect of this is that the purpose of a trademark is to be a means of distinguishing products, goods, and services belonging to the owner of the mark because of their manufacture, selection, trade, or offer for sale. This purpose is achieved by the difference between the marks used to distinguish a certain good, so that confusion is removed, and the consumer public does not fall into confusion and misrepresentation. This indicates that the legislator has made the existence of similarity between a previously registered mark for goods, products, or services and the mark sought to be registered a bar to registering the new mark. In the field of distinguishing the registered mark from the one objected to, it is not sufficient for the mark to contain letters, symbols, or images that the other mark contains, but rather the general image that is imprinted in the mind as a result of the composition of these letters, symbols, or images together.

---

or by the form in which one mark stands out from another, regardless of the elements that compose them and whether one shares in a part or more of what the other contains.

3- It is established that assessing whether there is a similarity between two trademarks that is likely to deceive the consumer public is a matter of fact that the trial judge independently determines, as long as he bases his judgment on sound reasoning that agrees with what is established in the records and leads to the result he reached.

4- That being the case, and as it is established in the records that the respondent company owns the trademark "Sayed Hanafy", which is registered, and that the trademark of the respondent company included the name "Sayed Hanafy", and that the trademark objected to its registration "Koshary and Sweets Mr. Hanafy" and its special shape is a prominent circular shape, while the other mark of the respondent is completely different.

Looking at these two aforementioned marks, it is clear that the similarity between them is limited to their inclusion of the word "Hanafy", meaning it is confined to one element of the elements of the objected mark. Meanwhile, they differ in all other elements, as each mark has its own identity that sufficiently distinguishes it from the other, especially since the common word "Hanafy" between the two marks is a common word - a name - and therefore cannot be monopolized or claimed for a special right, as long as the other elements of the trademark are different and distinct. Since the objected mark - mentioned above - has its own identity that distinguishes it from the mark of the first respondent company, so that the consumer public is not likely to be confused or mistaken between them, and that the general image imprinted in the mind as a result of the composition of the elements of each of them is different from the other, and as the appealed judgment contradicted this view, it is flawed and marred by an error in the application of the law and corruption in reasoning, which necessitates its reversal with referral without examining the rest of what was argued.

The Court

After reviewing the papers and reciting the summary report and deliberation.

---

Factual Background

Whereas the appeal has met its formal requirements.

And whereas the facts, as they appear from the appealed judgment and all other appeal documents, are that the plaintiff (the appellant) filed the present lawsuit by a statement of claim lodged on 2025/06/16, requesting in its conclusion the judgment first: to accept the appeal in form, second: in substance: 1- To annul the decision of the Grievance Committee at the Trademark Administration of the Ministry of Economy No. 2025/53 issued on 2025/03/21 concerning the rejection of the registration application for trademark No. (368343) submitted by the appellant. 2- To compel the Ministry of Economy to register and record the trademark subject of the dispute. 3- To compel the respondents jointly to pay the fees, expenses, and lawyer's fees.

The plaintiff stated in support of her claim that the appealed decision No. 2025/53 was issued on 2025/03/21, with the rationale stating: "The committee believes: due to the priority of the grievant (the objector) in registering and using the mark, in addition to the words 'koshary' and 'halwani' being descriptive words and not considered distinctive, therefore it decided: to accept the grievance and reject the registration of the aforementioned trademark." She added that she requests the court to order the respondents to suspend the execution of the appealed decision temporarily, and prevent any legal effect thereof, until a final judgment is issued in the appeal. The plaintiff explained in her claim that on 2022/01/06, she submitted application No. 368343 in class (43) to the Trademark Administration at the Ministry of Economy, for the purpose of registering her trademark. On 2022/04/25, the second respondent (Sayed Hanafi's sons and their partners) submitted an objection to the registration of the appellant's mark. The first respondent (the Trademark Administration at the Ministry of Economy) decided on 2024/04/19 to rule on the objection submitted by the second respondent: "Based on all that has been mentioned above, it is decided to accept the objection in form and reject it in substance, and to accept the registration of the objected trademark."

The second respondent was not satisfied with the decision issued by the Trademark Administration at the Ministry of Economy, so she filed a grievance against it according to the law before the Grievance Committee at the Ministry, and decision No. 2025/53 was issued on 2025/03/21, with the rationale stating: "The committee believes: due to the priority of the grievant (the objector) in registering and using the mark, in addition to the words 'koshary' and 'halwani' being descriptive words for the registration category and not considered distinctive, therefore it decided: to accept the grievance and reject the registration of the aforementioned trademark." She added that she requests the court to order the respondents to suspend the execution of the appealed decision temporarily, and prevent any legal effect thereof, until a final judgment is issued in the appeal.

She added that the appealed decision was flawed in the application, interpretation, and construction of the law in its conclusion, and it ruled contrary to what is established in the documents and records submitted before it, as it based its rejection of the trademark registration in favor of the appellant on an error.

---

the appellant (Koshary and Halawani Mr. Hanafi L.L.C.), based on two reasons: First: the priority of the grievant (the second respondent) in registering and using the trademark. Second: that the two words (Koshary) and (Halawani) are descriptive words for the registration category, and are not considered a distinctive element. As it has not been definitively established that the second respondent used the trademark she registered and which she invokes against the appellant within the UAE since the date of its registration, which exceeds several years, and we do not concede the existence of a confrontation with the appellant within the UAE since the date of its registration, which exceeds several years, and we do not concede the existence of similarity between the two marks, whether explicit or implicit, causing any confusion to others. And with the lack of proof of the second respondent's use of the trademark in which she disputes its similarity with the appellant's trademark, the appealed decision becomes void for its reliance on falsehood unsupported by documents, by adopting the prior use of the second respondent's mark without evidence, and it is established that the ownership of a trademark belongs to whoever used it before another, while registration - as a general rule - does not create the right of ownership, but rather confirms its existence. The appellant has the right to use the trade name (Koshary and Halawani Mr. Hanafi L.L.C.) since obtaining the official license on 2021/05/24 issued to it from the Emirate of Dubai under number 954438, without any dispute from anyone and in accordance with the regulations in force for granting trade names within the state and without similarity in that with any of the names used within the state. The second reason: the corruption of the reasoning of the decision under appeal that the two words (Koshary) and (Halawani) are two descriptive words for the registration category, and are not considered a distinctive element. And that the reasoning of the appealed decision which led it to accept the grievance and reject the registration of the appellant's mark is contrary to the understanding of the definition of a trademark contained in Article (2) of the UAE Trademark Law, where the appellant's trademark is distinguished by artistic and visual elements that make it distinct and unique from the mark of the second respondent, whether in terms of form, content, or substance, in addition to the fact that the phrase "Mr. Hanafi" is linguistically divided into two words, the first being "Mr.", which is an honorific title used in the Arabic language to refer to a respected man or a person of social standing, and of course, it is used frequently before names to define them, and Hanafi is an old and well-known Arabic name, and the name "Sayed Hanafi" here is a binary name for a specific real person, and thus the appellant's "Mr. Hanafi" is a compound phrase with a symbolic conventional meaning, and it cannot be linguistically or semantically matched with the compound personal name "Sayed Hanafi", which is a purely civil name. And that the appellant's mark enjoys sufficient distinction in design, form, and identity, which prevents any real confusion or objective similarity when compared to the other mark, contrary to what the second respondent claims and which the first respondent supported in that.

---

The first respondent's decision was void. Also, both trademarks are completely different in terms of phonetic resonance. The appellant's trademark, as established, is composed of four Arabic words, while the second respondent's trademark is composed of only two words. On the other hand, the resonance of the word "Al-Sayed" is very distinct to everyone before any name. In examining the aspects of similarity between the two trademarks, we find it very weak, almost non-existent, whether in phonetic resonance, as it only appeared in the word "Hanafy," which is a common word for the public and is not exclusive to the second respondent. The appellant's use of this word cannot lead to misleading the public or the ordinary consumer. In terms of visual impact, we find that both trademarks are completely different. The dominant feature of the second respondent's trademark is the blue color for a binary name, whereas the appellant's trademark consists of four words in addition to a drawing of a man, a plate, and a spoon, with the dominant color being orange. The decision issued by the Grievance Committee at the Ministry of Economy (Trademark Administration) lacked a clear and precise explanation of the reasons that led it to issue this appealed decision. The plaintiff concluded her statement of claim with the aforementioned requests.

At the session of 2025/12/17, the Court of Appeal ruled to accept the lawsuit in form, and in substance to dismiss it, and obligated the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses, and five thousand dirhams for lawyer's fees.

This judgment was not accepted by the appellant (the plaintiff), so she challenged it by cassation with the present appeal. When it was presented in the consultation room, the court deemed it worthy of consideration at a hearing. It was therefore heard as stated in the minutes of the sessions, and a date was set for today to pronounce judgment.

Whereas the essence of the appellant's contention in the first and second grounds against the appealed judgment is the error in applying the law and the flawed reasoning, arguing that the appealed judgment's flawed reasoning was based on the priority of the grievant (the second respondent) in registering and using the trademark, which is contrary to reality and contrary to what is established in the documents, as it has not been definitively proven that the second respondent used the trademark she registered and which she invokes against the appellant within the UAE since the date of its registration several years ago, and we do not concede that there is any similarity between the two trademarks, whether explicit or implicit, causing any confusion to others. The appellant's trademark includes a prominent circular design, containing a drawing of a man whom the appellant has taken as a primary symbol, wearing an orange apron and holding a large plate of food and a spoon, which establishes the visual identity of oriental restaurants. It contains the full phrase "Koshary and Sweets Mr. Hanafy" according to the trade name in its official commercial license, which is considered part of the trademark and is inseparable from it. The trademark is displayed exclusively in the Arabic language. We find that the drawing of the man and the trade name are an integral part of the core of the mark and are clear in visual perception. In addition, the phrase "Mr. Hanafi" is linguistically divided into two words.

---

The first word is "Al-Sayed," which is an honorific title used in the Arabic language to refer to a respected man or a person of social standing. Naturally, it is frequently used before names to identify them. "Hanafi" is an old, well-known, and famous Arabic name. The other mark belonging to the second respondent (found on the right) is clearly completely different, without any confusion to the observer. The appellant's trademark has sufficient distinction in design, form, and identity, which prevents the occurrence of any genuine confusion or objective similarity when compared to the other mark, contrary to what the second respondent claims and which the first respondent supported in the matter, invalidly. Furthermore, both marks are completely different in terms of phonetic resonance. The appellant's trademark, as established, is composed of four Arabic words, while the respondent's trademark is composed of only two words. On the other hand, the resonance of the word "Al-Sayed" is very distinct to everyone before any name, which necessitates its reversal.

Whereas this challenge is, in both its aspects, well-founded, as it was established by Articles (2) and (3) of Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2021 on Trademarks that a trademark is anything that takes a distinctive form such as names, words, signatures, letters, or symbols, and that a trademark or part of it shall not be considered, nor shall it be permissible to register as such, a trademark that is identical or similar to a mark previously filed or registered by others for the same goods or services or for related goods or services, if the use of the mark sought to be registered would create an impression of a link between them and the goods or services of the owner of the registered trademark or would be detrimental to his interests.

It was also established, according to Article Four of the aforementioned decree-law, that it states: "1- A famous trademark that has transcended the borders of the country in which it was registered to other countries for identical or similar goods or services may not be registered except upon a request from the owner of the famous trademark or with his approval. 2- In determining whether a trademark is famous, consideration shall be given to the extent of its recognition by the relevant public as a result of its promotion, the duration of its registration or use, the number of countries in which it was registered or became famous, its value, or the extent of its impact on promoting the goods or services for which the famous trademark is used for distinction. 3- The registration of famous trademarks to distinguish goods or services that are not identical or similar to those distinguished by these marks is not permitted in the following two cases: a- If the use of the mark indicates a connection between the goods or services sought to be distinguished and the goods or services of the owner of the famous trademark. b- If the use of the mark is likely to be detrimental to the interests of the owner of the famous trademark." This implies that the purpose of a trademark is to be a means of distinguishing the products, goods, and services of its owner, whether due to their manufacture, selection, trade, or offer for sale. This purpose is achieved by the differentiation between the marks used to distinguish a specific good, thereby eliminating confusion so that the consumer public does not fall into confusion and misrepresentation.

---

the consumer public into confusion and misrepresentation, which indicates that the legislator has made the existence of similarity between a previously registered mark for goods, products, or services and the mark sought to be registered a bar to registering the new mark. In the field of distinguishing the registered mark from the one being challenged, it is not enough for the mark to contain letters, symbols, or images that the other mark contains, but rather the general image that is imprinted in the mind as a result of the combination of these letters, symbols, or images, or by the form in which one mark stands out from another, regardless of the elements that compose them and whether one shares a part or more of what the other contains. It is also established that assessing whether there is a similarity between two trademarks that would deceive the consumer public is a matter of fact that the trial judge independently decides, provided he bases his judgment on sound reasoning that is consistent with what is established in the records and leads to the conclusion he reached.

Since this is the case, and it is established in the records that the respondent company owns the registered trademark "Sayed Hanafy," and that the trademark of the respondent company included the name "Sayed Hanafy," and that the trademark for which registration is challenged, "Koshary and Sweets Mr. Hanafy," has a distinctive circular shape, while the other mark of the respondent is completely different.

Looking at these two marks, it is clear that the similarity between them is in their inclusion of the word "Hanafy," meaning it is confined to a single element of the challenged mark's elements, while they differ in all other elements. Each mark has its own identity that sufficiently distinguishes it from the other, especially since the common word "Hanafy" between the two marks is a common name, and therefore it cannot be monopolized or a special right claimed over it, as long as the other elements of the trademark are different and distinct. Since the challenged mark - referred to above - has its own identity that distinguishes it from the mark of the first respondent company, such that consumer confusion or misidentification between them is inconceivable, and the general image imprinted in the mind as a result of the combination of their respective elements is different from the other, and as the appealed judgment contradicted this view, it is flawed and marred by an error in the application of the law and flawed reasoning, which necessitates its reversal with referral, without addressing the rest of what was argued.