Article 10bis obliges every member of the Paris Union to assure nationals of other member states “effective protection against unfair competition.” It 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 — it lets courts capture dishonest conduct that no drafter anticipated.
Second, it lists three acts that must “in particular” be prohibited (Article 10bis(3)):
- Confusion — acts of such a nature as to create confusion, by any means whatever, with a competitor’s establishment, goods, or industrial or commercial activities;
- Discrediting — false allegations in the course of trade that discredit a competitor’s establishment, goods, or activities;
- Misleading the public — indications or allegations liable to mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, suitability for purpose, or quantity of goods.
The words “in particular” matter: the list is a floor, not a ceiling. Member states must prohibit at least these three categories, and the general clause covers everything else contrary to honest practice. Article 10ter adds that members must provide appropriate legal remedies to repress these acts.
What Iran’s Article 129 provides
Article 129 of the Industrial Property Act lists six acts that constitute unfair competition:
- False statements against a competitor that remove, reduce, or harm confidence in the competitor’s business enterprise, goods, or industrial and commercial activities;
- Creating a resemblance between one’s own goods and services and a competitor’s, where it is of a nature to cause consumer confusion;
- False or misleading advertising — any provision of information or creation of a false impression that misleads the public as to the nature and quality of products, such as their constituent materials, period of validity, origin, method of manufacture, amount or quantity, or availability for use;
- Misleading comparative advertising that damages the reputation and standing 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;
- Collusion on prices — any collusion to increase or decrease the price of goods and services carried out for the purpose of eliminating competitors.
A note to the Article carves out one safe harbour: an expert opinion rendered by a specialized authority, within the scope of its legal competence, does not constitute 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, in a different order: discrediting (item 1), confusion (item 2), and misleading indications (item 3). Iranian law is in this respect a faithful implementation of the Convention’s minimum, and item 3 is arguably clearer than its Paris counterpart — it spells out the kinds of deception covered, naming constituent materials, shelf life, origin, manufacturing method, and quantity.
One drafting difference within this overlap is worth noting. Article 129(2) conditions the confusion tort on conduct “of a nature to cause consumer confusion” concerning goods and services, while Article 10bis(3)(i) reaches confusion “by any means whatever” with the establishment, the goods, or the activities of a competitor. Confusion with a business establishment as such — for example, imitating a competitor’s trade dress or shop presentation rather than the goods themselves — sits comfortably within the Paris text; under the Iranian text 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 provision 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: locally licensed products advertised in a way that trades on the reputation of the original without matching its quality. Advertisers must make the distinction clear where the licensed goods do not have the original’s quality.
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). 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, a point counsel should check in any pricing dispute.
Where Paris goes further than Iranian law
The 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 treats its three listed acts as mere examples. Article 129, by contrast, is drafted as a closed list — “the following constitute unfair competition.”
This matters for conduct that is dishonest but fits none of the six items: for instance, certain forms of free-riding on a competitor’s investment, or interference with a competitor’s contracts. Two readings are possible. On a strict reading, such conduct falls outside Article 129 and a claimant must rely on general civil-liability rules. On a Convention-oriented reading, Article 10bis — as a treaty Iran acceded to in 1959, and which under Article 9 of the Iranian Civil Code has the force of law — supplies the general standard that Article 129 particularizes. 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 that, at any stage of civil or criminal proceedings, a claimant may ask the court 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 where the goods are at the border.
Beyond civil remedies, the Act’s criminal provisions (Article 131) treat acts of unfair competition as criminal offences. This goes well beyond the Paris minimum: Article 10ter only requires that member states provide “appropriate legal remedies,” leaving 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, because a misstep 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 attacked under Article 129(2). Third, border enforcement is available: the extension of Article 73 means unfair-competition claims can support seizure of goods at customs, a remedy previously associated mainly with 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; 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 — and 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 prohibiting all conduct contrary to honest commercial practices.
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.