Case study
The DPDT dismissed ZARA's opposition to the Bangladeshi clothing brand Maanzara in Class 24. The authority found that ZARA had no use or presence in Bangladesh, relied on registrations that were not properly renewed, gave weak evidence of confusion, and that "Maanzara" is a distinctive coined word that differs visually, phonetically and conceptually from "ZARA". SUPREMEiP® represented Maanzara.
Background: a local brand and a global name
Applicant
Maanzara
A Bangladeshi clothing brand with genuine commercial presence and use in Bangladesh. It applied to register its mark in Class 24 to protect its brand in its home market.
Opponent
ZARA (Inditex Group, Spain)
A global fashion group. It opposed the application, alleging a risk of consumer confusion between the two names.
The opposition was heard by the DPDT, the Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks under the Ministry of Industries. It followed the procedure in Section 18 of the Trademarks Act, 2009: a notice of opposition, a counter-statement, evidence and a hearing. See how opposition works.
The two positions
| ZARA (opponent) | Maanzara (applicant) | |
|---|---|---|
| Core claim | The marks are confusingly similar | "Maanzara" is a single coined word, visually, phonetically and conceptually different from "ZARA" |
| Market | Global reputation | Actively serves local Bangladeshi consumers with local sensibilities |
| Use in Bangladesh | Alleged protection, but no stores, sales or promotion shown | Showed active, genuine commercial use |
| Registrations | Relied on Bangladesh registrations | Pointed to gaps in renewal and maintenance |
Why the opposition failed
Lapsed registrations
- Many of ZARA's registrations in Bangladesh had not been properly renewed or maintained when it opposed. That weakened its standing.
A suggestion of continuous protection that the record did not support
- The opposition implied active, continuous protection in Bangladesh. The renewal and compliance records showed gaps, which the authority took seriously.
No use in Bangladesh
- No commercial presence, sales or promotion in Bangladesh, and nothing to substantiate a claim of prior use.
A weakly drafted notice
- The notice of opposition did not establish a credible likelihood of confusion, which is the core of the case.
Maanzara's proof of use
- Maanzara demonstrated active, genuine use, a decisive factor in establishing its superior right.
Distinctiveness
- The authority found "Maanzara" to be a distinctive coined word, so no reasonable likelihood of confusion could arise.
The decision
The authority held that ZARA's opposition entirely lacked merit and dismissed it, allowing Maanzara to proceed to registration in Class 24.
Analysis: what it means for opposition in Bangladesh
Evidence
Fame is not enough
An opponent must show rights and confusion in Bangladesh, not only a global reputation.
Maintenance
Keep registrations alive
A lapsed or unrenewed registration is a weak foundation. See trademark renewal.
Drafting
State every ground well
A notice with every ground and a clear factual background carries the hearing.
- Local brands can defend coined names with proof of genuine use
- Global brands should audit their Bangladesh portfolio regularly
- Distinctive coined marks are harder to attack than descriptive ones
Representation
Maanzara was represented by SUPREMEiP® through J. A. Chaudhury Reagan, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
Facing a difficult objection or opposition?
SUPREMEiP® builds a strategy for each file, including hearings and challenges to cited marks. Send us the notice.
