Uzbekistan has introduced a three-year moratorium on inspections of small businesses. While the measure is intended to reduce the administrative burden on businesses, its implementation may also affect existing intellectual property enforcement mechanisms, particularly inspections conducted in response to trademark infringement complaints.
On 27 August 2026, the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan signed Presidential Decree No. UP-175 “On Measures to Implement the Tasks Defined at the VI Open Dialogue of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan with Entrepreneurs.”
One of the key measures introduced by the Decree is a three-year moratorium on inspections of small businesses.
The Decree provides for a limited number of exceptions. The moratorium does not apply, among other things, to inspections conducted within criminal proceedings, inspections concerning public health and compliance with labour legislation, as well as inspections initiated on the basis of complaints from individuals, VAT refund matters, and the liquidation of a business entity.
Any inspection falling outside the specified exceptions may therefore be considered unlawful during the moratorium period.
How could this affect trademark enforcement?
One of the mechanisms available for trademark enforcement in Uzbekistan is for a trademark owner to file a complaint with the Ministry of Justice regarding the alleged unauthorised use of its trademark.
Such inspections can play an important role in documenting an infringement, establishing the relevant factual circumstances and collecting evidence that may subsequently be used by the rights holder.
Following the adoption of Presidential Decree No. UP-175, an important practical question arises: will the Ministry of Justice be able to conduct such inspections where the alleged infringer qualifies as a small business? The issue stems from the wording of the Decree itself. Among the exceptions to the moratorium, the Decree expressly refers to inspections initiated on the basis of complaints from individuals.
Complaints submitted by legal entities, including companies that own trademark rights, are not expressly identified as a separate exception. As a result, where a company discovers unauthorised use of its trademark by a small business and files a complaint with the Ministry of Justice, the possibility of conducting an inspection may become subject to uncertainty.
Why does this matter in practice?
An inspection by a competent state authority can be an important tool for promptly documenting an infringement and establishing the relevant facts. If the moratorium is interpreted as restricting such inspections against small businesses, trademark owners may need to rely more heavily on alternative methods of collecting evidence and enforcing their rights, including independent evidence gathering, test purchases, cease-and-desist correspondence and court proceedings.
This may be particularly relevant in counterfeiting cases, where timely documentation of the sale, storage or other use of infringing goods can be critical to an effective enforcement strategy.
Legal uncertainty remains
At this stage, however, it would be premature to conclude that inspections by the Ministry of Justice in trademark infringement matters are entirely unavailable against small businesses. Presidential Decree No. UP-175 establishes a general moratorium and a list of exceptions, but does not specifically address the application of the moratorium to intellectual property enforcement procedures.
The key question will therefore be how the new restrictions interact with existing trademark enforcement mechanisms and how the Ministry of Justice interprets and applies the Decree in practice. For now, this should be regarded as a potential legal and practical risk rather than an established practice of refusing to conduct inspections.
What should trademark owners consider?
The Ministry of Justice’s emerging practice will be important in determining how trademark infringement complaints against small businesses will be handled during the moratorium period. Until a consistent approach develops, trademark owners should take the moratorium into account when planning their enforcement strategy and should not rely on an administrative inspection as the sole method of documenting an infringement. SETTLE will continue to monitor the implementation of Presidential Decree No. UP-175 and its impact on intellectual property enforcement in Uzbekistan.