Dubai court rejects trademark infringement claim for lack of evidence

The owner of a well-known trademark filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent others from using, importing, selling, displaying or storing products bearing his trademark or any similar trademark and to remove all traces of unauthorized use.

Dubai Commercial Court, however, dismissed the lawsuit as it stood and ruled that his right to rely on the expert appointment decision had lapsed due to non-payment of the required deposit. It also obligated him to pay the incurred fees and expenses.

The plaintiff based his claim on his ownership of registered trademark rights for a number of products in the country, claiming that the defendants exploited them without authorisation by displaying and selling counterfeit trademark products and using the name in advertisements inside and outside stores, which constituted an infringement of his commercial rights.

To support his lawsuit, the plaintiff submitted copies of trademark registration certificates, the defendants’ trade licences and photographs of the products in dispute.

The defendants, however, maintained that this evidence was insufficient, pleading that the case should be dismissed for lack of standing and absence of original evidence proving the infringement.

The court deemed it necessary to resort to technical expertise to examine the elements of the dispute, given its technical nature related to trademarks.

It decided to appoint a specialized expert committee and tasked it verifying the registration and ownership of the trademark and the history of its use by both parties, examining the products offered by the defendants, identifying the similarities or differences among the trademarks and determining whether there was direct or indirect imitation of the trademark.

The plaintiff, who did not pay the expert fee within the specified period, submitted a request to amend the appointment decision to be limited to one expert against a reduced fee.

The judge, however, rejected this request as having no legal justification and referred the case to the court to decide on it.

The court stated that failure to pay the expert’s fee without an acceptable excuse would legally lead the plaintiff's right to rely on expert appointment decision to lapse and consequently prevent the execution of the technical task that was necessary to uncover the truth of the dispute.

Whereas proof is the foundation of rights, the plaintiff is obligated to provide evidence for his claim and whereas the presumption is the innocence of the defendants, this presumption can be overturned only by conclusive evidence, the court said.

The court noted that the case lacked decisive technical evidence after the expert opinion could not be obtained due to the plaintiff's negligence.

The documents submitted, albeit important, are not sufficient in themselves to prove the fact of infringement in complex technical matters such as trademarks, which require a specialized examination to determine the similarities and the extent of their impact on consumers, it said.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was unable to prove his claim, as his inaction prevented the court from clarifying the elements of the dispute, adding that this necessitated his lawsuit to be rejected and he be obligated to pay the incurred fees and expenses.