Article 10bis sets a duty for every member of the Paris Union. Each member must give nationals of other member states “effective protection against unfair competition.” The provision then does two things.
First, it sets a general standard. Any act of competition “contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters” is an act of unfair competition (Article 10bis(2)). This open-ended clause is the heart of the provision. Because it is broad, courts can catch dishonest conduct that no drafter foresaw.
Second, the article lists three acts that members must prohibit “in particular” (Article 10bis(3)):
- Confusion — any act that creates confusion, by any means, with a competitor’s establishment, goods, or activities.
- Discrediting — false claims made in the course of trade that discredit a competitor’s establishment, goods, or activities.
- Misleading the public — indications or claims that may mislead the public about the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, suitability, or quantity of goods.
The words “in particular” matter. The list is a floor, not a ceiling. Members must ban at least these three categories, and the general clause then covers everything else contrary to honest practice. Article 10ter adds one more duty: members must provide proper legal remedies to stop these acts.
What Iran’s Article 129 provides
Article 129 of the Industrial Property Act lists six acts that count as unfair competition:
- False statements against a competitor that remove, reduce, or harm confidence in the competitor’s business, goods, or commercial activities.
- Creating a resemblance between one’s own goods or services and a competitor’s, where it is likely to confuse consumers.
- False or misleading advertising — any information or false impression that misleads the public about the nature and quality of products. This covers their constituent materials, validity period, origin, method of manufacture, quantity, or fitness for use.
- Misleading comparative advertising that damages the reputation of a competitor’s goods, services, or economic activities.
- Advertising that fails to distinguish original goods from licensed goods that lack the quality of the original.
- Price collusion — any collusion to raise or lower the price of goods and services in order to eliminate competitors.
A note to the article adds one safe harbour. An expert opinion given by a specialised authority, within the scope of its legal competence, does not count as unfair competition.
Side by side: Paris Convention vs. Iranian law
| Category of conduct | Paris Convention, Art. 10bis | Iran, Art. 129 (2024 Act) |
|---|---|---|
| Discrediting a competitor | Prohibited — Art. 10bis(3)(ii) | Prohibited — item 1 |
| Creating confusion with a competitor’s goods or business | Prohibited — Art. 10bis(3)(i), “by any means whatever” | Prohibited — item 2, framed around resemblance of goods and services |
| Misleading the public about goods | Prohibited — Art. 10bis(3)(iii) | Prohibited — item 3, with a more detailed illustrative list (materials, validity period, origin, manufacture, quantity, availability) |
| Misleading comparative advertising | Not expressly listed | Prohibited — item 4 |
| Blurring original vs. licensed goods | Not expressly listed | Prohibited — item 5 |
| Price collusion aimed at eliminating competitors | Not addressed (a competition-law matter) | Prohibited — item 6 |
| General “honest practices” clause | Yes — Art. 10bis(2) | No equivalent — Art. 129 is drafted as a list |
| Remedies | Left to national law (Art. 10ter requires appropriate remedies) | Civil remedies, provisional measures (Art. 130), and criminal sanctions (Art. 131) |
Where the two frameworks align
The first three items of Article 129 track Article 10bis(3) closely, though in a different order. They are discrediting (item 1), confusion (item 2), and misleading indications (item 3). In this respect, Iranian law faithfully implements the Convention’s minimum. Item 3 is arguably clearer than its Paris counterpart, because it spells out the kinds of deception covered. It names constituent materials, shelf life, origin, manufacturing method, and quantity.
One drafting difference is worth noting. Article 129(2) conditions the confusion tort on conduct “of a nature to cause consumer confusion” about goods and services. Article 10bis(3)(i), by contrast, reaches confusion “by any means whatever” with the establishment, the goods, or the activities of a competitor. Take confusion with a business establishment itself, such as imitating a competitor’s trade dress or shop presentation rather than its goods. That kind of confusion sits comfortably within the Paris text. Under the Iranian text, however, it requires a purposive reading.
Where Iranian law goes further than Paris
Items 4 through 6 of Article 129 have no counterpart in the Convention’s list.
Misleading comparative advertising (item 4) reflects a more modern approach. Comparable provisions appear in the WIPO Model Provisions on Protection Against Unfair Competition and in many national laws adopted after 1996. The Iranian rule targets comparisons that damage a competitor’s reputation, not comparative advertising as such.
The original-versus-licensed-goods rule (item 5) is a distinctive addition. It addresses a real market problem in Iran. Some locally licensed products trade on the original’s reputation without matching its quality. Here, advertisers must make the distinction clear when the licensed goods fall short of the original.
Price collusion (item 6) is the most unusual entry. Concerted pricing aimed at eliminating competitors is classically an antitrust matter. In Iran, it is also governed by the competition chapter of the Act on Implementation of General Policies of Principle 44 of the Constitution (2008). As a result, placing it in an unfair-competition chapter of an IP statute means the same conduct may now engage two parallel regimes with different enforcement bodies. Counsel should check this point in any pricing dispute.
Where Paris goes further than Iranian law
The most significant structural difference runs the other way: Article 129 contains no general clause. The Paris Convention defines unfair competition as any act contrary to honest practices, and it treats its three listed acts as mere examples. Article 129, by contrast, reads as a closed list — “the following constitute unfair competition.”
This gap matters for conduct that is dishonest but fits none of the six items. Examples include certain forms of free-riding on a competitor’s investment, or interference with a competitor’s contracts. Two readings are possible here. On a strict reading, such conduct falls outside Article 129, so a claimant must rely on general civil-liability rules. On a Convention-oriented reading, Article 10bis supplies the general standard that Article 129 particularises. Iran acceded to the treaty in 1959, and under Article 9 of the Iranian Civil Code it has the force of law. Until courts settle the question, careful pleading will cite both.
Enforcement: injunctions, seizure, and criminal liability
Article 130 extends the provisional-measures regime of Article 73 to unfair competition. In practice, this means a claimant may ask the court, at any stage of civil or criminal proceedings, to:
- issue an order to secure the claim;
- seize the infringing products;
- grant an interim injunction against the manufacture, sale, or importation of those products — enforceable by customs officers when the goods are at the border.
Criminal liability goes further still. Under the Act’s criminal provisions (Article 131), acts of unfair competition are criminal offences. This reaches well beyond the Paris minimum. Article 10ter only asks member states to provide “appropriate legal remedies,” and it leaves the choice of civil, administrative, or criminal enforcement to national law. Iran chose all three tracks: civil damages, border and interim measures, and prosecution.
What this means for businesses operating in Iran
Three practical consequences follow from the new chapter.
First, advertising review now has statutory teeth. Comparative claims, quality claims, and origin claims should be vetted against items 3 to 5 of Article 129 before publication. After all, a misstep now carries criminal as well as civil exposure.
Second, brand owners have a cause of action independent of registration. Where a trademark or design registration is unavailable or has lapsed, confusing imitation of goods and services can still be challenged under Article 129(2).
Third, border enforcement is available. Because Article 73 now applies, unfair-competition claims can support seizure of goods at customs — a remedy previously tied mainly to registered rights.
Frequently asked questions
Does Iran have an unfair competition law?
Yes. Articles 129 and 130 of the Industrial Property Act, enacted in July 2024, are Iran’s first dedicated statutory provisions on unfair competition. Article 129 lists six prohibited acts, and Article 130 makes interim injunctions and seizure available in unfair-competition cases.
Is Iran a member of the Paris Convention?
Yes. Iran acceded to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1959 and accepted the Stockholm Act amendments in 1998. Under Article 9 of the Iranian Civil Code, ratified treaties have the force of domestic law.
How does Article 129 differ from Article 10bis of the Paris Convention?
Article 129 covers the three acts the Convention requires — discrediting, confusion, and misleading the public. It then adds three more: misleading comparative advertising, advertising that blurs original and licensed goods, and price collusion aimed at eliminating competitors. Unlike Article 10bis, however, it contains no general clause against all conduct contrary to honest commercial practice.
Are there criminal penalties for unfair competition in Iran?
Yes. The criminal provisions of the Industrial Property Act (Articles 131 to 133) extend criminal liability to acts of unfair competition, alongside civil damages and provisional measures. The Paris Convention itself does not require criminal sanctions.
Can a company obtain an injunction for unfair competition in Iran?
Yes. Through Article 130, the provisional-measures regime of Article 73 applies to unfair competition. Courts can order security for the claim, seizure of infringing products, and interim injunctions against manufacture, sale, or importation, enforceable at customs.
HENGAM advises international and domestic clients on unfair competition, trademarks, and enforcement under Iran’s Industrial Property Act. For an assessment of a specific advertising practice or a competitor’s conduct, contact the firm. See also our overview of how intellectual property is protected in Iran.
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.