On February 7, 2026, amendments to the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Competition” entered into force, restoring an important mechanism for protecting businesses against bad-faith trademark registrations. Under the updated law, actions by third parties involving the registration of designations that have already been used in the market by another business entity may once again be qualified as unfair competition.
To fully understand the significance of these changes, it is important to consider the legislative background. In October 2023, this mechanism was removed from the law, which significantly limited the available tools to challenge bad-faith trademark filings. It was later partially reinstated through subordinate regulation (a governmental resolution). However, it has now been reintroduced at the statutory level, strengthening its legal standing and improving predictability for market participants.
The current version of the law explicitly prohibits actions aimed at restricting the sale of goods that have already been introduced into civil circulation, including through the acquisition of exclusive rights to means of individualization (such as trademarks) belonging to a competing business or its products.
Particular attention should be paid to the concept of “restriction of sale of goods,” which is likely to play a key role in future enforcement practice. On one hand, it may be interpreted that for the antimonopoly authority to initiate proceedings, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the bad-faith registration is accompanied by actual interference with the activities of the prior user.
On the other hand, a broader interpretation is also possible, whereby the very act of registering a third party’s brand could be considered a restriction of competition, as it creates legal risks and pressure on the legitimate market player. The final approach will ultimately be shaped by enforcement practice.
Elimination of legal uncertainty
The introduction of these amendments also resolves a previously existing legal ambiguity. Earlier versions of the law contained a provision stating that it did not apply to relations involving exclusive rights to intellectual property objects. This created uncertainty regarding the competence of antimonopoly authorities in disputes related to trademarks. The current version of the law explicitly provides that it does not apply to such relations, except in cases involving the prohibition of unfair competition. As a result, the previous limitation has been effectively removed, and antimonopoly authorities now have clearly established powers to review cases involving bad-faith registration and use of trademarks.
The return of this mechanism to the level of law is a positive development for businesses. It enhances regulatory transparency, strengthens protection against trademark hijacking, and contributes to a more predictable competitive environment. In a market where brand-related disputes are becoming increasingly common, such changes play an important role in maintaining fair competition and safeguarding business interests.