News

Practice Areas

Important Links

INFRINGEMENT ACTION

Advocates IP Law Alliance — News & Client Updates

About Our Firm

Advocates IP Law Alliance is a full-service intellectual property law firm based in Bangladesh. We specialize in brand protection and advise on patents, designs, trademarks, copyrights, domain names, anti-counterfeiting, enforcement, and IP strategy for local and international clients. If you need to protect your brand or seek advice from an IP law firm, we’ve got you covered.

International inquiries: For information on protecting patents, designs, trademarks, or domains in Bangladesh, please contact iplaw@bangla.net or call +880 1797 589 335.

Firm & Industry News

INTA Appointment (2018–2019)

Mr. Delwar Hossain, Managing Partner, was appointed by INTA as a Member of the Anti-Counterfeiting Committee for the 2018–2019 term.

VAT on IP Matters (Effective January 2018)

A 15% VAT applies to payments relating to trademark, patent, and design matters in Bangladesh (effective January 2018).

Power of Attorney – New Legal Framework

Bangladesh has replaced the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 with the Power of Attorney Act, 2012. Implementing Power of Attorney Rules, 2015 (gazetted 23 July 2015) provide:

  • Standard formats for general, special, irrevocable, land-development, and foreign powers of attorney.

  • Prescribed procedures for issuing and cancelling POAs, including foreign POA authentication.

Service Marks — Trademarks Act, 2009

Applications may be filed for services under Classes 35–45.

Claiming Convention Priority

Applicants from WTO member states and Paris Convention signatories may claim priority under Section 120, Trademarks Act, 2009.

  • File in Bangladesh within six months of the earliest foreign filing.

  • Submit a certified copy of the priority application.

  • Bangladeshi filing will be accorded the priority date.

Applications by Nationals of Taiwan (2013 Circular)

Per circulars of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Industries (2013), nationals of Taiwan may file patent and trademark applications in Bangladesh if Taiwan is described as a province of China on the application.

Government Fees — Trademarks (2015)

With the Trademarks Rules, 2015 (effective 1 September 2015; circulated December 2015), government fees for trademark matters were increased, including higher late-renewal fees.

Public Holidays in Bangladesh (2025)

Friday and Saturday are weekends in Bangladesh. (2025 holiday list archived.)

Our Services & Practical Notes

Trademark Registration in Bangladesh

Bangladesh offers a straightforward and cost-effective filing environment for foreign brand owners, investors, and traders. For guidance on timelines and fees, contact info@biplobd.com or iplaw@bangla.net | +880 1797 589 335.

Trademark Searches

We conduct availability searches by mark and by owner/proprietor. Typical turnaround is two working days, including a registrability opinion. We offer complimentary searches for our valued clients and associates.
To begin: share the mark and Nice class(es).

Renewal of Trademark Registration

Under the Trademarks Rules, 2015, renewal applications must be filed at least three months before expiry of the registration term.

Enforcement & Case Highlights (Bangladesh)

The following are selected historical matters illustrating our enforcement capabilities.

AKAI v. Electrical & Electronic Company Ltd.

  • Court: District Judge, Dhaka; later the High Court Division (Supreme Court)

  • Orders:

    • 22 Jan 2015: Ad-interim injunction restraining use of AKAI on electronic products (Title Suit No. 39 of 2014).

    • 13 Dec 2015: In Misc. Appeal No. 71 of 2016, the High Court Division restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or marketing goods under AKAI pending appeal.

  • Context: Phenomenon Agents Limited (BVI), a subsidiary of Akai Electronic Co. Ltd. (Japan), owner of the well-known mark AKAI (since 1948), challenged attempts by a local company to register and use the mark. A 2012 rectification petition was rejected, including on Paris Convention Article 6bis grounds.

SANSUI Acoustics Research Corporation v. Electrical & Electronic Company Ltd.

  • Court: District Judge, Dhaka

  • Order: 22 Jan 2015 ad-interim injunction restraining use of SANSUI on electronic products (Title Suit No. 40 of 2014).

  • Context: Owner of the well-known mark SANSUI (adopted 1947, Japan) acted against unauthorized local use.

Watertec Malaysia Sdn Bhd Matters — Classic Sanitary & Apon Sanitary

  • Infringer’s ex parte relief vacated:

    • An ex parte ad-interim injunction obtained by the opposing party on 22 Jul 2015 (Title Suit No. 35 of 2015) was vacated by the Second Additional District Judge on 9 Sep 2015.

  • Plaintiff’s ad-interim relief granted:

    • In a separate action (Suit No. 49 of 2015), the District Judge issued a show-cause and ad-interim injunction on 9 Nov 2015, restraining defendants from producing, marketing, distributing, or selling goods deceptively similar to Watertec’s products.

Administrative & Procedural Developments (2014)

  • DPDT Public Hearings: The Department of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (DPDT) scheduled public hearing hours every Monday, 11:00–13:00 (Room 624) to receive suggestions and complaints (June 2014 notices).

  • Examination of Backlog: In August 2014, the Trademarks Department invited attorneys to seek examination of long-pending applications (below Serial No. 100000), allowing examination of applications filed over seven years earlier.

Non-Traditional Trademarks in Bangladesh: Colour, Sound, and Smell Protection in Modern Branding

Modern branding is no longer confined to logos and words. Airlines use signature scents in their cabins, technology companies rely on start-up sound, and luxury businesses also heavily invest in single shades such as the Tiffany & Co’s well-known blue. These are all examples of non-traditional (or non-conventional) trade marks: signs such as colour, sound, smell, as well as shape that function as indicators of commercial origin.

For a Bangladeshi rights-holder, or an international brand entering this market, the obvious question that arises is whether the law of Bangladesh can protect such non-traditional trade marks. The answer requires looking both at the global case law on these marks and at the Trademarks Act 2009 and how it is applied in practice.

From logos to sensory signs

The traditional story of trade mark law is visual. Early UK legislation, such as the Trade Marks Registration Act 1875 and the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act 1883, was designed around devices and word marks. Over time, courts and legislators accepted that marks do more than indicate origin: they embody brand image, advertising investment and reputation. This shift is visible in key European decisions such as L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV, Intel Corp Inc v CPM UK Ltd and Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc, where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recognised that trade marks can be infringed or diluted even without confusion if their reputation or investment function is unfairly exploited.

The same development underpins the move towards protection of sensory signs. Colour marks are now common examples. Tiffany & Co.’s “Tiffany Blue” was ultimately fixed via collaboration with Pantone; the shade functions as a brand in its own right. In Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau, the CJEU accepted that a single colour can in principle be a trade mark, but only where it has acquired distinctiveness through use and is defined with sufficient precision, typically via an internationally recognised colour code. In practice, the burden of proof is high. The General Court’s recent decisions in Chiquita Brands LLC v EUIPO, Väderstad Holding AB v EUIPO and Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO show how even sophisticated colour and figurative marks will fail if the evidence of acquired distinctiveness fails to suffice or if the colours perform mainly decorative or signalling functions.

Olfactory marks are the most challenging category. In Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, the CJEU accepted that smells could in theory be trade marks but insisted that any representation must be clear, precise, self-contained, accessible, intelligible, durable and objective. A chemical formula, a written description of the scent (“balsamically fruity with a slight hint of cinnamon”) and a physical sample all failed that test. Subsequent European cases confirm how narrow the path is. The “smell of freshly cut grass” was accepted for tennis balls in Vennootschap Onder Firma Senta Aromatic Marketing’s Application, but the “smell of ripe strawberries” was rejected in Eden SARL v OHIM on the basis that different strawberries smell differently and there was no objective taxonomy for the scent. By contrast, US practice has been more accommodating: in In re Clarke the scent of Plumeria blossoms for thread was accepted, while Hasbro’s Play-Doh scent has famously been registered after extensive evidence of use and advertising.

Sound marks tend to sit between these two extremes. In Shield Mark BV v Kist, the CJEU confirmed that sound marks can be registered if properly represented – typically on a stave with clef, notes and tempo – but rejected vague descriptions and onomatopoeia. Later General Court decisions portrayed the substantive hurdles. In Globo Comunicação e Participações v EUIPO, the “PLIM PLIM” sound was found too banal to be distinctive. In Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co KG v EUIPO, the sound of a can opening followed by fizz was treated as the natural, functional sound of using the product, not a badge of origin. Functionality analysis also appears in shape and colour cases, such as Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks in the UK and Traffix Devices Inc v Marketing Displays Inc in the US, where courts refused trade mark protection for features seen as essential to product use or as giving a significant non-reputation-related competitive advantage, as in Qualitex Co v Jacobson Products Co.

In all these examples, courts put the focus on three questions: does the sign distinguish origin (often only after heavy use), can it be represented with sufficient clarity, and is it free from utilitarian or aesthetic functionality that competitors must be able to copy?

 

Interpreting the Trademarks Act 2009: Bangladesh’s Position on Colour, Sound and Smell Trade Marks

With regard to the international background, the position of non-traditional trade marks in Bangladesh is quite distinctive.

The Trademarks Act 2009 adopts a notably broad definition of “mark”. Section 2(23) includes devices, brands, labels, names, signatures, words, letters, symbols, numerals, figurative elements and “a combination of colours or any combination thereof”. Sections 6 and 7 then contemplate that a trade mark may be limited wholly or partly to one or more specified colours, and that such limitation will be taken into account when assessing distinctiveness.

Importantly, the Act does not contain any express requirement that a mark must be visually perceptible. Academic analysis of the Bangladeshi regime has highlighted this as a point of divergence from many other systems, which still tie registration to visual or graphic representation. In doctrinal terms, this silence leaves conceptual room for signs that are not purely visual, provided they can indicate a connection in the course of trade and are distinctive.

In practical terms, however, the registry and courts in Bangladesh remain focused on visually represented marks: words, logos, devices, figurative elements and colour combinations. The DPDT’s usual practice shows trade marks as visual symbols and do not provide filing mechanisms for pure sound marks (with sound files) or smell marks (with scent samples or technical descriptions). There are, so far, no reported Bangladeshi decisions comparable to Libertel, Sieckmann, Qualitex or Louboutin dealing with single colours, non-visual signs, or the representation of sound and smell.

The wording of the Act therefore looks modern and TRIPS-compliant, but the system has not yet developed the representational tools, evidential standards needed to handle the sort of non-traditional marks now common in the European Union or the United States.

Bangladesh’s approach to non-traditional trade marks remains grounded in the structure of the Trademarks Act 2009, which expressly recognises colour and composite visual elements. While global cases on colour, sound and scent marks portray the broader challenges of distinctiveness and representation, the Bangladeshi system continues to operate through its established focus on visually represented signs such as word marks, device marks, figurative elements and colour combinations. This provides rights-holders with a clear and consistent framework for brand protection. For now, businesses should rely on strong visual branding and well-supported evidence of use when seeking registration, while understanding that the current handling of non-traditional trade marks in Bangladesh reflects a predictable administrative practice aligned with the wording of the Act.

Sound and Smell Trademarks in Bangladesh: Registration FAQs

Q1. Can a smell trademark be registered in Bangladesh?

No. There is currently no procedure for registering a smell (olfactory) sign as a trademark in Bangladesh. The Trademarks Act 2009 does not expressly provide for smell marks, and Bangladeshi trademark practice has not developed any system for accepting or recording a smell trademark in Bangladesh.

Q2. Can a sound trademark be registered in Bangladesh?

No. A sound cannot presently be registered as a standalone trademark in Bangladesh. The DPDT does not accept or record pure sound marks as trademarks, and there is no practical filing route to obtain registration for a sound trademark in Bangladesh at this time.

Media

  • Trademark Enforcement in Bangladesh: See our archived TV news coverage (link available on request).

Recognitions

  • Corporate INTL Magazine Global Awards

    • 2014: IP Law Firm of the Year — Bangladesh

    • 2015: IP Law Firm of the Year — Bangladesh

Bangladesh Gazette Publishes the Commercial Court Ordinance, 2026: A New Commercial Litigation Track with a 90-Day Trial Mandate and Express Coverage of IP and Domain Name Claims  

The Bangladesh Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 1 January 2026, has published Ordinance No. 01 of 2026, the Commercial Court Ordinance, 2026. Promulgated under Article 93(1) of the Constitution, the Ordinance comes into force immediately and is framed to deliver the speedy disposal of commercial disputes and related matters through dedicated commercial courts and structured case management.  

 For brand owners, creators, and technology-led businesses, the Gazette text contains a feature of particular consequence: intellectual property disputes are expressly included within the definition of “commercial dispute,” alongside “domain name” claims/rights, bringing these disputes within the intended scope of the new commercial litigation framework once Commercial Courts are constituted for a territory. 

 A Dedicated Commercial Court Framework — and a Commercial Appellate Bench in the High Court Division 

The Ordinance empowers the Government, by Gazette notification, to establish the required number of Commercial Courts. Each court’s territorial jurisdiction is to be determined in consultation with the Supreme Court and may be adjusted from time to time. 

 Judges are to be appointed from among District Judges and Additional District Judges, with preference for those having training, experience and expertise in commercial laws and disputes.  

 At appellate level, the Ordinance provides for the Chief Justice to form one or more Commercial Appellate Benches in the High Court Division for matters arising from Commercial Court judgments and orders. 

 What Qualifies as a “Commercial Dispute” — Broad Coverage, with Defined Boundaries 

The Ordinance defines “commercial dispute” by reference to disputes arising under the original jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the original jurisdiction of civil courts, while excluding disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Artha Rin Adalat under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.  

 The Gazette then lists a detailed set of categories treated as commercial disputes, including (among others) disputes arising from business, banking and financial transactions; export and import; carriage of goods; construction and infrastructure; business-use immovable property; franchising; distribution and licensing; consultancy/management; joint ventures; shareholder arrangements; investment/subscription agreements (including outsourcing and financial services); partnership agreements; technology development; insurance and re-insurance; shipping/shipbuilding; matters under the Arbitration Act, 2001; and transactions under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2024. The Ordinance also contemplates that further categories may be designated from time to time.  

 The Gazette text also clarifies that certain features—such as the involvement of government or public service entities, or the use of immovable property as security—do not, merely by themselves, prevent a dispute from being treated as commercial. 

 How the Commercial Court Ordinance 2026 Impacts Intellectual Property Disputes in Bangladesh 

The Ordinance expressly includes IP rights and domain name claims/rights within the commercial dispute category, referring to claims and rights arising under Bangladesh’s principal IP statutes with specific Act references, including: 

  • Trade Marks Act, 2009: 2009, Act No. 19  
  • Copyright Act, 2023: 2023, Act No. 34  
  • Bangladesh Patent Act, 2023: 2023, Act No. 53  
  • Bangladesh Industrial Designs Act, 2023: 2023, Act No. 22  
  • Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 2013: 2013, Act No. 54 
  • Domain name claims/rights (expressly referenced alongside the statutory IP category)  

 This statutory classification matters. In effect, once Commercial Courts are established, disputes concerning these statutory IP rights—together with domain name claims/rights—are positioned to proceed within a procedural framework designed around structured case management, controlled evidence-taking, and defined timelines for key stages.

  Transfer of Pending Matters — and a Defined Objection Window 

Following the establishment of Commercial Courts, pending matters that qualify as commercial disputes are to be transferred from the ordinary civil court track to the relevant Commercial Court (subject to the Ordinance’s transfer mechanics, including a proviso addressing circumstances where an appeal or revision is pending).  

 Where a party contends that a transferred matter is not a commercial dispute, the Ordinance provides a specific timetable: 

  • the objection must be raised within 30 working days from the first scheduled date after transfer; and 
  • the Commercial Court must determine the objection within the subsequent 30 working days.  

 If the court determines the dispute is not commercial, the suit is sent back to the previous court. 

 Case Management and Hearing Discipline — Including a 90-Day Window for Final Hearing 

The Ordinance applies the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless it provides special rules.  

 A central procedural feature is the Suit Management Hearing, which occurs after the written statement is filed. At that stage, the Commercial Court structures the dispute by identifying issues, distinguishing matters suitable for documentary determination from those requiring oral evidence, setting a preliminary approach to witnesses, and sequencing stages with time allocations.  

Adjournments capped before final hearing
Before the final hearing, the Ordinance limits adjournments/time grants to a maximum of three occasions per party, subject to cause and the court’s discretion.  

 Final hearing to be completed within 90 days
Where the Commercial Court fixes a date for commencement of the final hearing, the Ordinance stipulates that the final hearing must be completed within 90 days from that date, without deviation. The provision is coupled with consequences where delay is attributable to a party’s conduct, including cost and participation-related measures as set out in the Gazette text. 

 Mediation Under the Ordinance — Including Pre-Suit Mediation Where Rules Exist 

The Ordinance contains mediation provisions, including a pre-suit mechanism. Specifically, where a commercial suit does not involve a prayer for urgent interim relief, the plaintiff must follow the government-prescribed pre-suit mediation procedure, provided such rules are in force at the time of filing 

Separately, before judgment, and where parties consent, the Commercial Court may facilitate dispute resolution through mediation, with a defined timeframe: mediation is to be completed within 30 days, extendable by a further 30 days. Settlements are recorded in writing and, subject to the court’s satisfaction that third-party rights are not affected, are treated as enforceable decrees. 

 Summary Judgment — Hearing to Be Fixed Within 15 Days 

After the written statement is filed, a party may apply for summary judgment. Where the application is maintainable, the Ordinance provides that the Commercial Court shall fix a hearing within 15 days of receiving the application, and may proceed in accordance with the Gazette framework for summary disposal. 

 Interest, Costs, and Execution Support — Commercial Consequences Embedded in the Process 

The Ordinance addresses interest in money decrees, providing that (absent party agreement) pre-judgment interest may follow the contractual rate (or a court-fixed rate where none exists), while post-judgment interest—unless otherwise ordered—is 2% per annum higher than the prevailing bank rate, with “bank rate” defined by reference to Bangladesh Bank’s rate from time to time.  

 It also adopts a general “costs follow the event” approach subject to judicial discretion and recognises costs broadly, including court fees, lawyer fees, witness expenses, and other reasonable litigation expenses. The Gazette further includes provisions aimed at supporting execution, including directions for disclosure and information needed to identify assets for enforcement. 

 Technology, Transparency, and Practice Directions 

The Ordinance contemplates the use of technology, including hearings by video conferencing and technology-enabled processes for filings, summons, submissions and judgments, subject to facilities and practice directions.  

 It also provides for the collection and monthly publication of statistics relating to filings, pendency and disposal in Commercial Courts and the High Court Division, and empowers the Supreme Court to issue Practice Directions to support proper implementation and speedy disposal. 

 

Contact