Case study
HUNAN MAGPOW ADHESIVE GROUP CO., LTD (China) filed "MAGPOW" in Class 1 (chemical products) in Bangladesh on 5 November 2024. On examination the DPDT raised a Section 10(3) objection, citing an identical "MAGPOW" filed in 2015 by a local proprietor. SUPREMEiP® asked for a direct hearing and applied to have the cited mark declared abandoned. After four days of hearings the cited mark was declared abandoned and MAGPOW was approved for publication on 1 February 2026.
Background: a brand entering Bangladesh
HUNAN MAGPOW ADHESIVE GROUP CO., LTD is a Chinese adhesive manufacturer. To sell and protect its MAGPOW brand in Bangladesh it instructed SUPREMEiP® to file the word mark in Class 1, which covers chemical products such as adhesives.
Filing through a local firm is mandatory for foreign applicants. What looked like a routine filing met a conflict at examination.
Case history
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25 Mar 2015 | A local proprietor files an identical "MAGPOW" mark (the later cited mark) |
| 5 Nov 2024 | MAGPOW application filed by HUNAN MAGPOW through SUPREMEiP® |
| 9 Jan 2025 | Examination report: objection under Section 10(3) citing the 2015 mark |
| 5 Mar 2025 | SUPREMEiP® applies for a direct hearing instead of relying on a written reply |
| 18 Mar 2025 | 13 days later, an application is filed to declare the cited mark abandoned |
| 11 Aug 2025 | The matter is transferred to a Deputy Director for the hearings |
| After Aug 2025 | Four consecutive days of hearings on abandonment, non-use and the client's interest |
| 1 Feb 2026 | Cited mark declared abandoned; MAGPOW approved for Journal publication |
The objection: an "absolute bar" under Section 10(3)
Section 10(3) of the Trademarks Act, 2009 deals with conflicting applications. Where an identical or similar mark is already on file for the same goods, the later application is held until the earlier one is resolved. In practice this works as an absolute bar: the newer application cannot move forward.
Here the earlier mark was identical to MAGPOW and nearly a decade old. For many applicants that would end the matter. The question was whether the 2015 mark was still a live right.
The strategy: two coordinated moves
Ask for a direct hearing
- A written reply to a Section 10(3) objection can sit pending for months or years, because the cited mark still blocks the file.
- A hearing application puts the issue in front of the decision-maker and forces a decision.
Challenge the cited mark itself
- An application to declare the 2015 mark abandoned, based on research into its status and commercial use.
- If the cited mark falls, the bar under Section 10(3) falls with it.
Running both together mattered. The hearing set the forum and the timetable, and the abandonment application attacked the real obstacle.
The hearings and the evidence
After the matter moved to a Deputy Director in August 2025, the DPDT examined both applications over four consecutive days. The team presented evidence on:
- The abandonment status of the cited mark
- The absence of commercial use by the earlier registrant
- The legitimate business interest of the Chinese manufacturer in Bangladesh
- The technical legal grounds supporting registration of MAGPOW
- The commercial importance of the mark to the client's operations in Bangladesh
The official found substantial merit in the grounds raised and gave a reasoned order.
The outcome
On 1 February 2026 the cited prior mark was declared abandoned and the MAGPOW application was approved for publication in the Trademarks Journal. If no one opposes within 2 months of publication, registration follows.
Analysis: what the case shows
Law
Section 10(3) can be overcome
A cited mark is not automatically fatal. It can be attacked on abandonment or non-use grounds.
Procedure
Hearings beat paper replies
Where a cited mark blocks the file, a hearing application can move the case faster than correspondence.
Evidence
Status and use must be proved
Searching the real history and use of the cited mark is the foundation of the challenge.
Timing
Deadlines drive the strategy
The hearing application was filed before the reply deadline ran out.
Compare the general rules in trademark objection in Bangladesh and deemed abandoned marks. For the same strategy on a restored file, see the LOTUS case.
Lessons for applicants
- An objection is not the end: look for a legal route
- Ask for a hearing early, and do not rely on a written reply alone
- Check the real status and use of any cited mark
- Choose a firm that can run hearings and challenge cited marks
MAGPOW case questions
What is a Section 10(3) objection?
An objection that an identical or similar earlier application for the same goods blocks yours until it is resolved.
How was the bar removed?
By having the cited 2015 mark declared abandoned after a hearing.
What happens next?
Publication in the Journal, a 2-month opposition window and, if unopposed, registration.
Facing a difficult objection or opposition?
SUPREMEiP® builds a strategy for each file, including hearings and challenges to cited marks. Send us the notice.
