Marks That Cannot Be Registered in the Maldives

The Act examines applications on the standard two-part basis. Absolute grounds are about the mark itself. Relative grounds are about somebody else’s earlier rights.

The division matters because the two behave differently. Absolute objections are usually answered by argument, evidence of distinctiveness, or amending the mark. Relative objections are answered by consent, by narrowing, or by attacking the earlier right.

Quick reference

Absolute grounds

Three categories are identified in the Act’s examination standard.

Distinctiveness. The mark must be capable of distinguishing one party’s goods or services from another’s. A sign that does no distinguishing work — because it is too generic, too common in the trade, or simply not perceived as a badge of origin — fails at the threshold.

Descriptiveness. A mark that describes the goods or services, rather than identifying their source, is objectionable. The usual territory: kind, quality, quantity, purpose, value, geographical origin.

Geographical descriptiveness deserves a thought in the Maldivian context. Island, atoll and resort names carry obvious commercial pull in tourism and fisheries, and they are the names most likely to attract a descriptiveness objection — and most likely to be wanted by several traders at once.

Public policy. Marks contrary to public policy or morality. Every jurisdiction has this ground and every jurisdiction applies it to local conditions. The Maldives is an Islamic state with a conservative legal framework, and a mark that passes without comment elsewhere may not here. For a brand entering the market, this is a question to settle before committing, not after an objection.

How far these are softened by acquired distinctiveness — whether use and recognition can rescue a descriptive mark, and what evidence would be needed — is not something the Act’s framework settles in detail. Expect the regulations and early practice to fill it in.

Relative grounds

Examination also covers conflict with earlier marks, so the office itself will cite prior rights rather than leaving it entirely to third parties.

That is worth knowing because it shapes clearance. In a first-to-file system with an examining office, the earlier filing both blocks you at examination and beats you on the merits.

The opposition grounds add more

Three further grounds are available to third parties once an application is published, and each reaches something examination would not catch.

Conflict with earlier pending or registered marks. The same territory as relative grounds, raised by the owner rather than the office.

Bad faith. This is the provision aimed squarely at the transition. In a market switching to first to file after decades of informal protection, the opportunistic filing of someone else’s long-used brand is the predictable abuse, and bad faith is the ground built to answer it.

Conflict with well-known marks or other prior IP rights. Protection for a reputation that was never registered in the Maldives, and for rights that are not trademarks at all — the Act’s reference to other prior IP rights reaches copyright-type claims in a logo, for instance.

See trademark opposition and well-known trademarks.

What is not yet settled

The Act sets the grounds. The evidence rules, formalities, hearings and appeals are expressly left to regulations due within six months of commencement.

So the following are open, and anyone stating them confidently today is guessing:

• what evidence establishes acquired distinctiveness, and whether it is available at all;
• whether consent from the owner of an earlier mark overcomes a relative objection;
• whether honest concurrent use has any role;
• the deadline and procedure for responding to an examination objection;
• the appeal route from a refusal.

Confirm each with MIPO when the regulations issue.

Practical reading

For anyone preparing to file in November, the grounds point to three decisions:

Avoid the descriptive. A geographically or descriptively weak mark is a poor bet in a new system with no case law to argue from. The stronger the mark, the cleaner the examination.

Check the mark against local sensibilities before committing, given the public policy ground.

File early, and keep the evidence. Relative grounds and the bad-faith opposition ground both turn on who was there first and what they can prove. In a first-to-file system the answer to the first half is the filing date, and the second half is the file you assembled during the transition. See the transition to registration.

Frequently asked questions

What are the grounds for refusing a trademark in the Maldives? Absolute grounds — lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness and public policy — and relative grounds, meaning conflict with earlier marks.

Can a descriptive mark be registered if it has been used for years? Whether acquired distinctiveness is available, and what evidence would establish it, is not settled by the Act’s framework. Expect the regulations and early practice to determine it.

Is bad faith a ground? Yes, as a ground of opposition. It is the provision most relevant to the transition, where long-used brands are exposed to opportunistic filings.

Can someone oppose without a Maldivian registration? Yes. Conflict with a well-known mark and conflict with other prior IP rights are both available without holding a Maldivian registration.

Does the office itself cite earlier marks? Yes — examination covers relative grounds, so earlier marks are raised by the office as well as by opponents.

How long do I have to answer an examination objection? Not yet published. The procedural framework is left to the implementing regulations.

Useful official resources

• Maldives Intellectual Property Office
• Maldives Government Gazette — the Act as published
• Trademarks Act, Law No. 19/2025

See our related notes on filing a trademark in the Maldives, trademark opposition and types of trademarks.

Clearing a mark for the Maldives before the register opens? Talk to us.