The short answer
Bangladesh courts decide trademark disputes with a few steady principles: the earlier user matters most (4 SCOB [2015] HCD 89), actual confusion is not needed, only a likelihood (73 DLR (AD) 33), well-known marks can be protected through trans-border reputation (57 DLR 93), and a former agent who registers the mark commits fraud on the Registrar (60 DLR (AD) 161). Passing off decisions, such as Orsaline and Domino's, apply the same logic.
Case snapshot
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Subject | Principles from reported Bangladesh trademark decisions |
| Courts | High Court Division and Appellate Division of the Supreme Court; civil courts for passing off |
| Main sources | Chambers Trade Marks and Copyright 2026 (Bangladesh); Legal 500 note on passing off |
| Type of study | Overview of principles. The case names are mostly given only as law-report citations in our sources |
| Individual studies | Orsaline v Oralsaline; Dominous v Domino's; Taiheiyo v Bengal Tiger |
Background and facts
Trademark disputes in Bangladesh arrive in two main ways. Appeals from decisions of the Registrar of Trademarks go to the High Court Division (and then the Appellate Division). Claims of infringement and passing off are brought in the civil courts, and appeals from district court orders also go to the High Court Division.
The Trademarks Act 2009 protects registered marks and allows passing off claims for unregistered marks, with remedies that include permanent and interim injunctions, damages or an account of profits, and delivery up of infringing goods.
The legal question
- Who owns the mark when two parties claim it?
- What level of similarity makes two marks confusing?
- Can a foreign mark that is not yet used in Bangladesh be protected?
- What happens when an agent or distributor registers the mark in its own name?
The court's reasoning
- Earlier user: the High Court Division has said that the key question in a trademark dispute is who the earlier user of the mark is (4 SCOB [2015] HCD 89).
- Likelihood of confusion: the Appellate Division has held that the test is whether a member of the public is at risk of being confused or deceived, and that actual confusion is not necessary, only a likelihood (73 DLR (AD) 33).
- Essential part of a mark: use of an essential part of a mark is liable to create confusion (6 ALR 300, HCD).
- Role of the Registrar: the Registrar must help prevent deception and confusion from similar competing marks on similar goods (28 BLD (HCD) 31).
- Trans-border reputation: protection of well-known marks should not depend strictly on a local market presence (57 DLR 93, HCD).
- International reputation: a 2024 judgment of the High Court Division protected a mark on the basis of international registrations, advertising and international use. A recent High Court Division judgment granted an injunction against a deceptive colour combination and bottle shape although the marks were quite different (the sources do not name the cases).
- Dishonest registration: a former agent who applied to register the mark in its own name committed fraud on the Registrar, so the application was liable to be rejected (60 DLR (AD) 161).
- Passing off: it rests on deception or the possibility of deception, and the plaintiff need not show that it was personally deceived (Shab Quat Haider v M Al-Amin, 1987 BLD (AD)).
Most of these decisions are cited in our sources only by law-report citation, without party names, dates or facts. We therefore describe the principle each decision is reported to stand for and do not claim more. For the facts of named cases see the individual studies listed in the snapshot.
Result and outcome
Taken together, the decisions give brand owners a predictable framework: priority of use, a likelihood-of-confusion test, protection for reputation across borders and strict treatment of dishonest filings. Passing off cases such as Orsaline v Oralsaline and Dominous v Domino's show the same principles applied to names and get-up.
Analysis: why this case matters
A March 2026 High Court Division decision (Dabur Bangladesh v Marico Limited, Title Suit No. 30 of 2020) has been reported by counsel in a social media post as upholding a lower court on trademark and passing off, taking the overall commercial look of the product into account. We have not seen the judgment and do not rely on it.
The practical message is that evidence of first use and reputation decides most disputes. A registration helps, but the earlier user who can prove use has the stronger position.
Practical lessons for brand owners and inventors
- Keep dated invoices, labels, packaging and advertising that show first use in Bangladesh.
- Collect proof of foreign registrations and international use if your brand is not yet sold locally.
- Put distributor and agent agreements in writing and make sure the mark is registered in your name.
- Monitor the Registrar's journal and act quickly against similar marks.
- Choose names that are not close in sound or look to an existing mark, especially in pharmaceuticals and food.
Sources and further reading
Chambers: Trade Marks and Copyright 2026, Bangladesh, Trends and Developments
Legal 500: Injunction as a way to prevent passing off of a trademark
Our guide: Trademark rectification and appeals
Secondary sources only (practice guides). We did not read the judgments. Verify any citation in the Dhaka Law Reports before relying on it.
Questions and answers
What is the key question in a Bangladesh trademark dispute?
Who is the earlier user of the mark.
Is actual confusion required?
No. A likelihood of confusion is enough.
Can a foreign mark be protected without local use?
Courts have protected well-known marks on the basis of trans-border reputation and international registrations and use.
Where do appeals go?
From the Registrar to the High Court Division, then to the Appellate Division.
Facing a similar dispute?
SUPREMEiP® prepares the evidence and works with local counsel for registration, watch and enforcement.
