The text of Article 107
Two or more persons may register a mark jointly. In that case, they may use the mark simultaneously, provided that simultaneous or separate use does not, in customary practice, mislead the public.
— Article 107, Industrial Property Act (2024)
What it means
Article 107 confirms that a trademark need not have a single owner. Co-owners hold the whole mark jointly, and each may place it on their own goods or services — at the same time as the others or separately.
Invention rules that also apply to marks
By the Act’s cross-application rule, several invention provisions apply to marks “as the case may be” — Note 3 of Article 7 matters most here. Where some co-owners oppose exploiting the mark, the others may ask the competent judicial authority to compel them and, on paying fair consideration for their share of the profits, may use it.
A gap the law leaves between co-owners
There is a subtlety worth flagging. The right is held jointly, but its use is not — each co-owner exercises it separately. Because the statute treats use as several rather than joint, major decisions such as assigning the mark or licensing it to a third party may not clearly require every co-owner’s consent. That reading leaves room for one co-owner to act unilaterally and harm the others. Article 107’s only express concern is harm to consumers — misleading the public — not the harm co-owners can do to each other. The Act does not close that gap.
Note 3 of Article 7 softens the edge. A co-owner who objects to exploitation cannot be ignored — the others must go to court and pay fair consideration for that co-owner’s share. So acting alone is real for ordinary use, while contested exploitation still runs through a judge.
Practical takeaway
A written co-ownership agreement is therefore essential, not optional. It should fix who may use the mark on which goods, how quality stays consistent, and — the point the statute leaves open — whether assignment and licensing need the consent of all co-owners.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if co-owners disagree about using the trademark?
Note 3 of Article 7 — applied to marks by the Act’s cross-application rule — lets the willing co-owners ask the court to compel the objectors and use the mark after paying fair consideration for their share of the profits.
Can one co-owner assign or license a jointly owned mark alone?
The Act is not explicit. Because Article 107 treats use as independent, it arguably does not require all co-owners’ consent — a gap best closed by a written co-ownership agreement.
Sadegh Shamshiri
Sadegh leads on legal strategy and represents high-profile clients in IP litigation and enforcement — across trademarks, patents, designs, copyright, and domain names, including complex multi-jurisdictional disputes.