The final brought together two countries that have territorial disputes with the United Kingdom. We won’t get into the politics of that, but in territories subject of dispute, where should you look to register a trade mark to provide protection?

Perhaps it is of no surprise that it depends on the on-the-ground situation.

Gibraltar

Spain disputes the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. There have been ups and downs in the relationship although at this time it’s cordial.

Gibraltar is self-governing with the UK responsible for defence and formal foreign affairs. A number of Spanish citizens work in the territory.

Gibraltar has its own trade mark legislation that provides for:

• Local registration by way of ‘extending’ or ‘re-registering’ a UK trade mark registration – the process is quick and inexpensive
• Allows for the automatic protection of protected UK designations of International Registrations from 1 January 2021
• Allows for the automatic protection of UK comparable registrations (those created from EU registrations on Brexit) per Section 18 of Gibraltar’s Trade Marks Act – the rationale of this is that Gibraltar was also a part of the EU

In the event of a trade mark dispute in Gibraltar, you will need to have a registration as above; a registration in Spain or the European Union is not going to be of use.

Falkland Islands

The territorial dispute with Argentina has been more prominent and made the news during the World Cup, particularly when England and Argentina faced each other. This is over another British Overseas Territory: the Falkland Islands.

Like Gibraltar, it is self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for, notably, defence. It was briefly invaded by Argentina in 1982.

Its Trade Mark Ordinance dates from 1996 and provides for protection of “a trade mark which is in the United Kingdom a registered trade mark for the purposes of the Trade Marks Act 1994” i.e. a UK registration provides automatic protection including a protected UK designation of an International Registration.

In the event of a trade mark dispute in Falkland Islands, a registration in Argentina is not going to be of use. To be frank, a trade mark dispute in a territory of less than 4,000 people must be considered extremely unlikely.

During those months in 1982 when the islands were invaded by Argentina, in theory, an Argentine registration would have been needed in a trade mark dispute.

Elsewhere

Being a Cold War kid, the countries of the former Communist block hold a fascination for me. Nowadays, the former Soviet Union contains a number of territorial disputes. How would some of these play out in the event of a trade mark dispute?

Crimea is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine but was annexed by Russia in 2014. Realistically, you would need a Russian registration to enforce trade mark rights there, not a Ukrainian registration.

Georgia has two breakaway regions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The situation on the ground is that these regions operate, despite limited international recognition, as independent countries (albeit heavily reliant on Russia). They have even enacted their own trade mark legislation so local registration would be needed to enforce (not Georgian, or Russian for that matter).

It’s similar in Transnistria, a breakaway region of Moldova, again with its own trade mark law.

Until recently, Nagorno-Karabakh operated as a de facto independent state propped up by Armenia and it recognised Armenian trade mark rights. In the last few years, however, it has been retaken by Azerbaijan, which it was a part of de jure. Therefore, now a registration in Azerbaijan would be required.

In northern Africa, Western Sahara presents an unusual situation. De jure this territory is Spanish, notwithstanding that they withdrew in the 1970s. The majority of the territory is now under the administration of Morocco (thereby a Moroccan registration providing protection). The part under the control of the independent Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has a tiny population estimated at 10,000 and no trade mark legislation.

This points to a pragmatic approach if protection is required for a disputed territory. They are likely to be far less commercially relevant particularly in the event of a military conflict, but you may wish to safeguard your position by protecting under the current operational laws as well as the law in which they could fall under in the future. However, it’s also wise to be wary of reputational damage of being seen of dealing with what could be seen as rogue states, particularly on social media’s court of public opinion.