Article 107 of Iran’s Industrial Property Protection Law (2024) allows two or more parties to register and own a single trademark together. The permission is genuine, but it carries one governing condition: the shared use must not confuse the public. This commentary sets out what the provision grants, why the confusion limit sits at its center, how it fits the wider Act, and where it leaves counsel to plan around gaps in the text.
Two or more persons may jointly register a single mark. In this case, they may use this mark simultaneously, provided that the simultaneous or separate use does not, by custom, cause public confusion.— Article 107, Industrial Property Protection Law (2024)
Key points
- Article 107 lets two or more parties jointly register and own a single trademark in Iran.
- Co-owners may use the mark together (simultaneous use) or independently (separate use).
- One limit governs both: the use must not cause public confusion, judged by ordinary commercial custom (عرف).
- Co-owners must hold quality consistent; divergent quality sends conflicting signals and breaches that limit.
- The Act leaves key points open — the transfer of a co-owner’s share, and the cure once confusion develops — so co-owners should sign a co-ownership agreement.
What Article 107 grants
The provision does two things. First, it lets several parties hold one registration together as co-owners of the same mark. Second, it authorizes two modes of use: simultaneous use, where the co-owners use the mark together, and separate use, where each uses it independently. The Act treats both as lawful, and subjects both to a single condition — that the use not cause public confusion.
Article 107 also settles a point that would otherwise arise under Article 100. That article makes use of a registered mark by anyone “other than the owner” conditional on the owner’s consent. Co-owners are owners, not third parties. They therefore need no license from one another to use the mark, and Article 107 confirms this directly.
Why the confusion limit governs the rule
A trademark performs one essential function: it identifies the source of goods or services and assures the public of consistent quality. The public reads a mark to answer a single question — whose goods are these, and can I rely on them? Co-ownership strains that function, because one sign now answers to several hands.
Article 107 resolves the strain without banning joint use. It permits the mark to serve many owners, but only while the mark keeps sending the public a single, truthful signal. A court will judge that signal “by custom” (عرف) — by ordinary commercial understanding and the perception of the average buyer, not by a technical formula. The Act applies the same customary standard elsewhere, notably in Article 118 on trade names, which confirms that the test is practical and consumer-facing.
Simultaneous and separate use, illustrated
Simultaneous use. Two siblings inherit the family bakery and its mark, and both continue to bake under it. Article 107 permits this. Customers remain unable to tell — and do not need to tell — that two hands now stand behind the mark, because the origin and quality stay consistent.
Separate use. Two companies form a joint venture, register a co-brand, and then divide its use by territory or product line. Article 107 permits this as well — provided the division does not lead buyers to expect one consistent product where two now exist.
The confusion limit governs each scenario. It does not ask how the co-owners have arranged matters between themselves; it asks what the market perceives.
The duty the text implies: hold quality together
Co-owners most often breach Article 107 by letting quality drift apart. When one owner supplies excellent goods and the other supplies poor ones, the same mark sends two conflicting signals — the classic trigger of public confusion. Article 107 therefore imposes an implied and continuing obligation. The co-owners must keep their goods and standards aligned closely enough that the mark still identifies a single, reliable source. Coordination is not a courtesy between them; it preserves the registration in substance.
The rest of the Act confirms this reading. Article 113 holds a mark owner answerable for a licensee’s goods unless the owner exercises effective quality control. Article 114 voids any change of ownership that misleads the public as to the nature, origin, or quality of the goods. The same concern drives Article 107: the law will let a mark serve several owners, but never at the cost of a consistent signal to the public.
A worked example — the dissolving joint venture. Two firms co-own a mark and then part ways. Each continues to use it independently, with different suppliers and different standards. The register shows no change, yet on the shelf the mark now means two different things. This is precisely the situation the confusion limit exists to catch — and, as set out below, the situation the text least clearly resolves.
How co-ownership fits the wider Act
Article 107 does not operate in isolation. Three further provisions shape how co-owners hold and defend the mark.
Non-use cancellation (Article 110). An interested party may seek cancellation for non-use where the owner has not used the mark for three years, whether personally or through an authorized person. Use by any one co-owner sustains the single registration and defeats such a challenge. Even so, co-owners should assign responsibility for use rather than each assuming the other will carry the mark.
Enforcement (Article 108). The Act grants standing to “the owner of a registered mark.” Each co-owner holds that status, so each may pursue an infringer. To avoid duplicated or conflicting actions, co-owners should agree in advance who leads enforcement and how they share its cost and proceeds.
Governance backstops (Article 116). Article 107 says little about how co-owners manage the mark among themselves, and Article 116 fills part of the gap. It is a bridging provision that extends a set of the Act’s general rules to trademarks. Two of those rules matter for co-owners, and Article 116 draws them from Note 3 of Article 7 and from Article 66. First, some co-owners may refuse to let the mark be used. A co-owner who wants to use it may then apply to the court to override that refusal. In exchange, that co-owner pays the others a fair value for their share of the benefit. Second, the co-owners bear the renewal fee in proportion to their holdings, and a co-owner who covers another’s unpaid share may recover it. These rules answer only part of what Article 107 leaves open.
What Article 107 leaves open
Article 107 states the rule but not all of its machinery. Counsel should plan around three open questions:
- Transfer of a share. The Act does not say how a co-owner may deal with their own share — whether they may assign or pledge it alone, and on what terms. The question resists an easy answer, because a mark is inseparable from the goodwill and the single source it represents. A share in it is not an asset a co-owner can cleanly carve off and sell on its own.
- Cure when confusion develops. Article 114 voids an ownership change that misleads the public. But Article 107 does not say what follows when confusion grows out of ongoing co-use, with no change of ownership — as in the dissolved joint venture above.
- Timing of the test. The text does not fix whether a court measures confusion only at registration or on a continuing basis, so that confusion arising later can unwind the co-use.
Where the Act stays silent, the general rules on shared ownership (مالکیت مشاعی) under Iranian civil law fill the gap. They govern, for example, whether a co-owner may deal in the common mark without the others’ consent. Until practice settles these points, counsel should treat the confusion limit as continuing rather than as a one-time check at registration. Counsel should also address each open question by agreement.
Practical guidance for co-owners
Execute a co-ownership agreement. Article 107 confers the right but supplies few of the rules. A well-drafted agreement should:
- fix quality standards;
- define permitted uses and govern licensing;
- control the transfer of a co-owner’s share;
- allocate enforcement; and
- set the terms of exit.
Build a quality-control mechanism. Agree on standards and a means of monitoring them, so the mark continues to send one signal. The Act rewards this discipline and penalizes its absence.
Map the boundaries of separate use. Where the co-owners divide use by territory, product, or channel, record the division precisely. That reduces the risk that the market reads two products as one — or one as two.
Guard against non-use. Assign responsibility for putting the mark to use, so that a lapse by one co-owner does not expose the registration to cancellation under Article 110.
Treat the confusion limit as continuing. Review co-use periodically. A structure that satisfies Article 107 at registration can drift into confusion as the co-owners’ businesses diverge.
Article 107 opens a genuine and workable route to trademark co-ownership in Iran. Using it safely turns on the single discipline the text demands and the co-owners must sustain: a mark that, however many owners it carries, still speaks to the public with one voice.
Frequently asked questions
Can two companies jointly own a trademark in Iran?
Yes. Article 107 of Iran’s 2024 Industrial Property Protection Law lets two or more parties register and own a single trademark, and use it together or separately, provided the use does not cause public confusion.
Can trademark co-owners use the mark separately?
Yes. Article 107 permits both simultaneous use, where the co-owners use the mark together, and separate use, where each uses it independently. Either is lawful, so long as it does not, by ordinary commercial custom, cause public confusion.
What does “public confusion” mean under Article 107?
It means the shared use must not mislead the average buyer about the source or quality of the goods. A court judges this “by custom” (عرف) — by ordinary commercial understanding, not by a technical test.
Must trademark co-owners keep quality consistent?
In practice, yes. If the co-owners’ goods diverge in quality, the mark sends conflicting signals to the public — the classic trigger of the confusion that Article 107 forbids. Consistent quality keeps the registration sound.
Can a trademark co-owner sell or transfer their share?
Article 107 does not address this, and a trademark cannot be cleanly separated from the goodwill and single source it represents. Co-owners should govern any transfer of a share through a written co-ownership agreement.
What happens if one co-owner does not use the mark?
Use by any one co-owner sustains the single registration and defeats a non-use cancellation under Article 110. Co-owners should still assign responsibility for use so the mark is not left idle.
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.