CWB Kazakhstan office was recently involved in a trade mark dispute between two competitors selling fast-moving consumer goods. In June 2026, the Kazakhstan Board of Appeal invalidated a trade mark registration in a decision that highlights the distinction between relative and absolute grounds for invalidation.

The decision is noteworthy because, although the Board rejected the brand owner’s claim that the competing marks were confusingly similar under Article 7 of the Trade Mark Law, it nevertheless invalidated the later registration based on the way the mark was used in the marketplace.

The brand owner owned an earlier family of trade marks, while the registrant held a registration for a later word mark used for overlapping goods. The brand owner argued that the later mark could mislead consumers into believing that the products originated from the same source or were commercially connected.

To remove the competing product from the market, the brand owner first had to invalidate the later trade mark registration, which made a traditional enforcement strategy difficult.

Under Kazakhstan law, a trade mark may be invalidated on relative grounds under Article 7 or absolute grounds under Article 6. While Article 7 addresses conflicts with earlier rights and typically requires an assessment of visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity between the signs, Article 6 prohibits, among other things, designations capable of misleading consumers regarding the manufacturer or commercial origin of goods.

Considering the Article 7 claim, the Board found that, although the marks shared a common initial element, they differed phonetically, visually, and conceptually. As the similarity of goods could not compensate for the lack of sufficient similarity between the signs, the claim was rejected.

To strengthen its Article 6 arguments, the brand owner initiated parallel proceedings before Kazakhstan’s antimonopoly authority, alleging unfair competition through the imitation of product packaging and overall product presentation.

Since enforcement practice concerning packaging imitation remains relatively limited in Kazakhstan, building the case required a substantial evidentiary record, including packaging materials, evidence of market presence, marketing materials, and an independent expert opinion addressing the similarities between the competing product presentations.

Following its investigation, the antimonopoly authority concluded that the competing product’s presentation constituted unfair competition through packaging imitation, which subsequently formed part of the evidentiary record supporting the brand owner’s Article 6 arguments before the Board of Appeal.

Importantly, while unfair competition itself is not a ground for invalidating a trade mark, the Board used the packaging imitation as proof that consumers would be misled about the origin of goods.

The Board expressly stated that its conclusion was not based on trade mark similarity. Instead, it found that the combination of the contested designation, the brand owner’s market presence, the nature of the goods, and the manner in which the designation was used, created a risk that consumers would assume the existence of a commercial connection between the parties.

The registration was ultimately invalidated under Article 6(3)(1) of the Trade Mark Law.

The decision is important for two reasons. First, it confirms that losing a trade mark similarity claim under Article 7 does not prevent a win under Article 6. Second, it demonstrates the practical value of parallel proceedings, as findings from unfair competition cases may provide persuasive evidence when consumer confusion and deception are at the heart of a dispute.

As Kazakhstan’s practice concerning packaging imitation continues to develop, the interaction between competition law and trade mark law is likely to become an increasingly important element of brand enforcement strategies.