A decades-long sibling partnership in the women’s abaya business has ended in a courtroom battle in Manama, Bahrain. Two brothers, who have operated separate abaya shops for nearly 40 years, are locked in a legal dispute over alleged trademark infringement. The plaintiff, represented by lawyer Abdulatheem Hubail, accuses his older brother of using a logo nearly identical to his registered trademark, causing customer confusion. The plaintiff is seeking a court order to compel his brother to cease using the logo and change it. He has also included the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in the lawsuit, requesting the ministry to strike the first defendant’s business registration due to the similarity to the plaintiff’s registered name and logo.
The plaintiff alleges that his brother’s logo and business name are so similar to his own that customers are confused, leading to lost sales. He filed a complaint with the Ministry of Industry and Commerce before pursuing legal action. The defense, represented by lawyer Hubail on behalf of the first defendant, argues that the lawsuit is inadmissible due to lack of standing and merit. The defense claims that the first defendant owned the trademark through use, there was no imitation, and the elements of fault and damage were absent. Both brothers had worked in the same field for 40 years, and the first defendant had already modified his logo, signage, and invoices before the lawsuit was filed.
An expert report confirmed that the first defendant had responded to the plaintiff’s concerns and altered his branding. However, the plaintiff’s counter-argument asserted that the first defendant had merely digitally altered the logo using Photoshop instead of commissioning a new one, and continued to use the similar business name, failing to comply with Article 15 of the Trade Names Law by publishing a notice of name change in local newspapers. The court initially ordered an investigation to verify the plaintiff’s claims of logo similarity and damages, but the plaintiff failed to provide witness testimony to prove the alleged damages. The expert report concluded that the first defendant was not using the plaintiff’s trademark or business name.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff’s failure to prove damages. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs, legal fees, and the expert’s fees. The court rejected the plaintiff’s final request to administer a decisive oath to his brother to prove the absence of infringing goods in his inventory. The legal battle between the two brothers highlights the complexities of trademark infringement disputes and the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims in court. The case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses to protect their intellectual property rights and resolve disputes amicably to avoid costly legal proceedings.
