Two routes take a mark off the new Maldivian register. Non-use — the mark was registered but never worked. And cancellation on the grounds that would have supported an opposition, raised after the three-month window closed.
The first is the one that will catch brand owners by surprise, because the behaviour the transition encourages is exactly the behaviour that triggers it.
Quick reference
| Non-use period | Five continuous years |
| Defence | Valid justification for the non-use |
| Evidential standard for use | Awaiting regulations |
| Other cancellation grounds | Those available in opposition — bad faith, well-known marks, earlier rights |
| Procedure, evidence, hearings | Awaiting regulations |
The five-year clock
A registration may be revoked for non-use over a continuous period of five years, absent valid justification.
Five years is the regional norm — Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all work to five in one form or another. Nepal is the outlier at one year.
What makes the Maldivian five years worth planning around is the interaction with the transition. The switch to first to file encourages defensive filing: brand owners registering more marks, across more goods, than they currently trade in, because the cost of not holding a mark is now losing it to whoever files first.
Every one of those defensive registrations starts a five-year clock. A portfolio built broadly in November 2026 becomes vulnerable from late 2031 — and the marks most exposed will be precisely the ones filed defensively, because they are the ones with no trading behind them.
The planning point: file what you will use, and be deliberate about what you file purely to block. Defensive breadth is a real strategy in a first-to-file country, but it has a five-year horizon and a cost at the end of it.
Valid justification
The Act allows non-use to be excused by valid justification. What qualifies is not spelled out in the reported framework.
Elsewhere in the region the equivalents are drafted narrowly and applied more narrowly still. Sri Lanka’s statute says expressly that the Court shall not take lack of funds into account. Pakistan requires “proper reasons”. Bangladesh talks of “special circumstances” not amounting to an intention to abandon.
The common thread is that commercial choice is not an excuse — the obstacle has to be external. Regulatory approval pending, import restrictions, a market closed for reasons outside your control: those are the sorts of facts that work. “We decided to focus elsewhere” is not.
Assume the Maldives will land in similar territory, and confirm when the regulations and early decisions come.
Proving use
The evidentiary standards for use await the regulations, which is a genuine gap. Until they issue, nobody can tell you how much use is enough, what form it must take, or whether use by a licensee counts as the owner’s.
That last point is worth flagging. Most statutes in the region say expressly that permitted use by a licensee counts as use by the proprietor. Whether the Maldives Act does is not settled in what has been published.
For anyone licensing a Maldivian mark — which, in a tourism economy with management agreements and franchise arrangements, is common — build the licence so that use is clearly attributable to the owner and the records are obtainable. That is good practice regardless, and it covers the gap.
Cancellation on other grounds
The grounds available in opposition — conflict with earlier pending or registered marks, bad faith, conflict with well-known marks or other prior IP rights — also support cancellation after registration.
For a brand that missed the three-month opposition window, that is the route. It is the slower, costlier version of the same argument, and the mark sits registered in the meantime.
The bad-faith ground will carry most of the transition-era work. An opportunistic filing of a long-used brand is a bad-faith case whether it is attacked at opposition or after registration, and it is proved the same way: by showing what the applicant knew, using the former user’s trading history and published cautionary notices as evidence.
See trademark opposition and the transition to registration.
What is not yet settled
- Who may apply for revocation — any person, or a person with an interest.
- Where — MIPO, a court, or either.
- The evidential standard for use, and what period it must cover.
- Whether partial revocation is available for some goods only.
- Whether licensed use counts as the owner’s use.
- Whether resuming use before an application is filed saves the registration, and whether any anti-gaming window applies, as Pakistan’s three-month rule does.
All of these come with the regulations. Until then, treat the five-year period as the only firm number.
Practical approach
Keep a use file from the day of registration. Invoices, packaging, advertising, dated photographs of product or signage in the Maldives. The evidential standard is unknown, so collect more than you think you need.
Review the defensive registrations at year four. That is the point to decide whether to start using a mark, let it go, or prepare a justification.
Make licensed use provable. Build reporting obligations into any licence, surviving termination.
Frequently asked questions
How long is the non-use period in the Maldives? Five continuous years, after which a registration may be revoked absent valid justification.
What counts as valid justification? Not yet defined. Comparable provisions in the region require an external obstacle rather than a commercial decision, and some expressly exclude lack of funds.
How much use is enough? Unknown. The evidentiary standards for use await the implementing regulations.
Does use by my licensee count? Not settled in what has been published. Build the licence so that use is attributable to the owner and the records are obtainable.
Can a registration be cancelled on the same grounds as an opposition? Yes — bad faith, conflict with well-known marks and earlier rights support cancellation after registration as well.
I filed defensively during the transition. Am I at risk? From five years after registration, yes. Defensive registrations are the ones with no trading behind them, so they are the most exposed. Review them well before the clock runs out.
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 trademark opposition, trademark renewal and the transition to registration.
Building a Maldivian portfolio with defensive filings in it? Talk to us.