Egypt

Punitive aspects related to the Intellectual Property Rights in the executive order on reciprocal tariffs dated 2 April, 2025 by Donald Trump. By: Emma Sainsbury, and Mostafa Ahmed Ibrachy & Dermarkar Law Firm | Est. 1932 May, 2025 The executive order of 2 April 2025 sparked interesting debates and discussions in the national and international media. Most of these debates focus on the announced aim for the executive order which is addressing the current account deficit. The discussions however overlooked the punitive aspect related to infringing the Intellectual Property rights owned by the US. Historical Use of Tariffs as Punitive Trade Measures: Interestingly, despite widespread global unrest and shock in relation to this new order, it is not the first time that the White House has used tariff related measures under such circumstances. Punitive use of the tariff can be traced to as far back as 1828, when the US Congress passed what became known as the ‘abomination tariff’. As implied by its name, its unprecedented high rates, in an attempt to rectify trade imbalances, received heavy criticism, which led to their nullification just 4 years later. It exemplified an early executive use of the tariff as a solution to restore the commercial balance sheet in favour of domestic trade, but in this case ultimately led to its nullification just 5 years later. Trump’s recent tariff, passed with a similar intent of rectifying the trade imbalance, can now be analysed in a 21st century framework, where intellectual property rights have a significant part to play on the international playing field. Intellectual Property Deficiencies as Non-Tariff Barriers With reference to the recent declaration, it is extrapolated from the text of the executive order issued by Donald Trump on 2 April, 2025 that it indeed addresses "inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights" as non-tariff barriers. While the term "punitive measures" in direct connection with intellectual property might not be explicitly detailed in text of the executive order, the Order's central mechanism of "reciprocal tariffs" designed to "rectify trade practices" (which include those related to inadequate IP protection), can be analysed for its implicitly punitive aspect concerning enforcement of US Intellectual Property. Why It's Important for IP Law: This is a key question because it examines the growing trend of using trade measures to enforce IP protection goals. This could affect how international IP agreements, such as the TRIPS Agreement (which sets global Intellectual Property rules) , are applied. In relation to this, on 4 March 2025 the US indefinitely paused financial contribution to WTO. It's also vital for understanding how trade law and IP law interact when one country uses trade actions based on its assessment of another country's IP system. Looking at the penalty aspect is crucial for seeing how such actions might influence global IP standards, the creation of new inventions, and access to international markets for IP-intensive goods and services. Identification and Legal Interpretation of IP-Related Provisions • Close Reading of the Executive Order: The executive order referencing intellectual property, includes terms like "inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes," and "inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights. Comprehensive Overview of Non-Tariff Barriers in the Executive Order: The transcript of the executive order states that: “Similarly, non-tariff barriers also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world. The 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) details a great number of non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports around the world on a trading-partner by trading-partner basis. These barriers include import barriers and licensing restrictions; customs barriers and shortcomings in trade facilitation; technical barriers to trade (e.g., unnecessarily trade restrictive standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations); sanitary and phytosanitary measures that unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering safety objectives; inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights; discriminatory licensing requirements or regulatory standards; barriers to cross-border data flows and discriminatory practices affecting trade in digital products; investment barriers; subsidies; anticompetitive practices; discrimination in favor of domestic state-owned enterprises, and failures by governments in protecting labor and environment standards; bribery; and corruption.” Framing IP Deficiencies as Trade Asymmetries Affecting U.S. Manufacturing: The executive order framed inadequate intellectual property protections as a form of asymmetries in trade relationships actively weaken domestic production capacity, particularly within the U.S. manufacturing . These same imbalances also negatively impact U.S. producers' ability to export, which consequently reduces their incentive to produce. Such lopsided trade dynamics are thus a direct cause of and contribute significantly to the development of trade deficits. The executive order states that: “These asymmetries also impact U.S. producers’ ability to export and, consequentially, their incentive to produce. Specifically, such asymmetry includes not only non-reciprocal differences in tariff rates among foreign trading partners, but also extensive use of non-tariff barriers by foreign trading partners, which reduce the competitiveness of U.S. exports while artificially enhancing the competitiveness of their own goods. These non-tariff barriers include technical barriers to trade; non-scientific sanitary and phytosanitary rules; inadequate intellectual property protections; suppressed domestic consumption (e.g., wage suppression); weak labor, environmental, and other regulatory standards and protections; and corruption. These non-tariff barriers give rise to significant imbalances even when the United States and a trading partner have comparable tariff rates.” Trade Deficits and Non-Tariff Barriers from IP Inadequacies: Inadequate intellectual property protections, inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights; discriminatory licensing requirements or regulatory standards are framed by the executive order as "non-tariff barriers" or practices contributing to trade deficits targeted by the Order. Executive Order’s Classification of IP Shortcomings as Trade Barriers: The Executive Order frames inadequate intellectual property (IP) protection in trade partner countries as a significant non-tariff barrier that directly contributes to U.S. trade deficits by fostering unfair competition and distorting trade flows. This framing asserts that when trading partners have lax IP regimes or fail to enforce IP rights, their domestic companies can illicitly exploit U.S. IP rights, such as patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks, trade names—thereby avoiding substantial research and development costs or avoiding licensing royalties. These practices constitute infringement against US IP rights, allowing the domestic infringers in the trade partner companies to utilise US IP rights as free ride on the expense of US IP holders. This effectively creates an unfair competitive advantage, allowing these infringing entities to produce and export goods more cheaply. Such weak IP protection acts as a non-tariff barrier by undermining the competitiveness of U.S. businesses that have invested heavily in innovation, restricting their market access due to fears of infringement, and ultimately devaluing U.S. intellectual assets. The Executive Order then links these IP-related non-tariff barriers to the trade deficit by arguing that they suppress U.S. exports (as companies become wary of selling in infringing markets), increase U.S. imports of unfairly priced or counterfeit goods, hence resulting in lost licensing revenue and royalties for U.S. IP holders. Consequently, the Order positions these IP deficiencies not just as isolated infractions but as systemic trade practices that contribute to the targeted trade imbalances, thereby justifying the consideration of measures like reciprocal tariffs to rectify these conditions. Causal Link Between Reciprocal Tariffs and IP-Related Trade Practices: The authority to impose "reciprocal tariffs" under the Executive Order can be directly linked to identified IP deficiencies in trading partners because the Order is designed to rectify "trade practices" contributing to trade deficits, and it frames inadequate IP protection as a non-tariff barrier—a type of trade practice. By defining these IP deficiencies as harmful trade practices that contribute to the U.S. trade deficit through mechanisms like unfair competition, suppressed exports, and increased infringing imports, the Order establishes a direct causal pathway. Consequently, if a trading partner's IP regime is deemed deficient and thus a contributor to the trade deficit as per the Order's criteria, the "reciprocal tariffs" can be applied as a direct response aimed at rectifying those specific IP-related issues. Legal Justification for Sanctions: Section 301 and the Focus on China: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly justifies trade sanctions as a response to ‘unreasonable’ acts that may burden U.S. commerce. Trump’s administration in particular, has cited this law several times, as seen in the recent Executive Order, to target such foreign trade practices. A 2017 investigation conducted by the Secretary Trade under his administration, confirmed harmful IP-related trade barriers, with an emphasis on China, placed at the top of its priority watch list . This would explain the particularly high rates aimed at China in the President’s recent policy, and begs the question as to whether such measures are appropriate to tackle severe infringements on US Intellectual Property. Special 301 Report: Evaluating Foreign IP Enforcement in 2025: In this context, on 29 April 2025, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2025 Special 301 Report on the adequacy and effectiveness of U.S. trading partners’ protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights. Unilateral U.S. Determination of “Inadequate” IP Protections: The provided Executive Order clearly states that "inadequate intellectual property protections" in other countries are a type of unfair trade practice (a non-tariff barrier) that harms the U.S. However, the Order doesn't give a specific checklist or detailed definition of what makes IP protection "inadequate." Instead, the meaning is implied: the U.S. government itself will likely decide if another country's IP protection is insufficient based on its own laws, standards, and what it believes is needed to protect American businesses and national security. While international rules like the TRIPS Agreement might be a starting point for these judgments, the Order suggests the U.S. will look for stronger protections than just those minimums, ultimately basing its view of "inadequate" on whether U.S. interests are being properly safeguarded, especially regarding the actual enforcement of IP rights. Divergence from Global IP Norms: U.S. Push for TRIPS-Plus Standards: The Executive Order very clearly sets the stage for the United States to unilaterally decide what it considers "inadequate intellectual property protection" in other countries, without needing their agreement or that of international bodies. This U.S.-only interpretation is highly likely to differ from the global consensus on IP rules, such as those in the TRIPS Agreement. Specifically, the U.S. would probably demand stronger IP protections than current international minimums require (so-called "TRIPS-plus" standards), might object to other countries using internationally permitted flexibilities in IP law if it harms U.S. interests, and would generally prioritize American economic benefits over the more balanced approach favoured by multilateral IP systems. This go-it-alone approach essentially bypasses established international cooperation and dispute settlement processes for IP issues.  

New Legal Insight: Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Identification in Egypt   The Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) has issued on January 8, 2025 a Guiding Manual on Identifying Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs). This manual sets a critical regulatory framework for banks to enhance transparency, combat financial crimes, and comply with international anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) standards. Our article provides a comprehensive analysis of this critical development, including: Key regulatory requirements for banks Definition and verification of UBOs Common techniques used to obscure ownership Risk indicators for concealed UBOs Compliance measures and international best practices This initiative aligns Egypt’s financial sector with global transparency standards, ensuring a robust framework for financial integrity. Table of contents The Egyptian Central Bank of Egypt Issues a Guiding Manual on Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Identification Objective and Legal Framework Key Requirements for Banks Definition of Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Methods Used to Conceal Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Identifying Ultimate Beneficial Owners in Different Scenarios Verification Procedures for Ultimate Beneficial Owners Indicators for Concealed Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Conclusion FAQs The Egyptian Central Bank of Egypt Issues a Guiding Manual on Ultimate Beneficial Ownership Identification On January 8, 2025, the Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) issued a guiding manual aimed at identifying the ultimate beneficial owners of bank clients. This initiative aligns with international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, emphasizing the necessity for banks to ascertain the true identity of ultimate beneficial owners. Various methods are often used to obscure the identity of ultimate beneficial owners, facilitating illicit financial activities. Objective and Legal Framework: The manual, developed in collaboration with the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Unit, provides comprehensive guidelines on identifying ultimate beneficial owners and recognizing the techniques used to conceal their identities. This initiative aims to establish a robust framework for banks to obtain accurate and updated data on ultimate beneficial owners in compliance with the local legislative and regulatory framework, particularly: The Anti-Money Laundering Law No. 80 of 2002 and its executive regulations issued by Prime Ministerial Decree No. 951 of 2003, along with their amendments. The Central Bank and Banking System Law No. 194 of 2020. Due diligence measures for bank customers issued by the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Unit. Regulatory controls concerning anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. Key Requirements for Banks: The guiding manual stipulates that banks must incorporate, at a minimum, the following measures within their internal procedures: Verification of Ownership and Control Structure: Banks must collect necessary documentation to assess the ownership structure and control mechanisms of their clients, whether individuals, legal entities, or legal arrangements. Identification and Verification of Ultimate Beneficial Owners: For natural persons identified as ultimate beneficial owners, banks must apply due diligence measures issued by the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Unit. Ongoing Monitoring and Updates: Banks must regularly update customer information in accordance with regulatory guidelines, adjusting procedures based on the level of risk associated with concealing ultimate beneficial ownership. Definition of Ultimate Beneficial Ownership: The manual defines an ultimate beneficial owner as “any natural person who ultimately owns or exercises actual control over a client, either directly or indirectly, or on whose behalf transactions are conducted.” Legal ownership and ultimate beneficial ownership are distinct concepts, as a natural person may be considered an ultimate beneficial owner based on the actual control they exercise over a legal entity. For legal entities, ownership structures are typically clear through shareholders and partners, whose information can be verified via official documents, such as general assembly minutes and board resolutions. In the case of trusts and similar structures, certain individuals may hold contractual roles with rights and obligations under a trust deed, despite not being legal owners. Methods Used to Conceal Ultimate Beneficial Ownership: The manual highlights several techniques used to obscure the identity of ultimate beneficial owners, including: Declaring false ultimate beneficial owners. Using shell companies or dormant companies. Establishing complex ownership structures. Appointing nominee shareholders or directors. Utilizing bearer shares, fraudulent loans, and fictitious invoices. Identifying Ultimate Beneficial Owners in Different Scenarios Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Natural Persons: The client is typically the ultimate beneficial owner unless another natural person is authorized to act on their behalf through power of attorney, delegation, or legal representation. If a designated representative manages the account’s operations in a manner suggesting ultimate control, banks must assess whether this individual is the true ultimate beneficial owner. Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Legal Entities: For corporations, commercial entities, institutions, non-profit organizations, and similar entities, ultimate beneficial owners are identified as follows: A natural person holding controlling ownership interests. A natural person exercising control through other means. If no individuals meet the above criteria, a senior management official is identified as the ultimate beneficial owner. Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Legal Arrangements: The identification process mirrors that of legal entities, considering the structural differences in legal arrangements, which may lack ownership control through equity stakes. Additionally, the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with such structures vary. Verification Procedures for Ultimate Beneficial Owners The manual outlines essential procedures for verifying ultimate beneficial ownership: Reviewing relevant documents such as trust deeds or letters of wishes. Obtaining information from reliable sources, including regulatory authorities, financial institutions, and corporate service providers. Conducting continuous assessments of transaction patterns, country risks, and the sources of funds linked to ultimate beneficial owners. Indicators for Concealed Ultimate Beneficial Ownership The manual categorizes suspicious indicators into three groups: Indicators related to Individuals: Reluctance to provide personal information. The client's reluctance or inability to explain his business activities and organizational history, the identity of the real beneficiary, or the source of his wealth and funds, as well as clarifying his financial transactions. The nature of his business dealings with other parties such as suppliers or customers. Insisting on using an intermediary for all transactions without sufficient justification. Persistent avoidance of personal contact with the commercial registry of the legal entity or legal arrangement without sufficient justification. Foreigners who do not have significant dealings in the country where they obtain professional or financial services. Refusal to cooperate or provide information, data and documents normally required to clarify the transaction. Inability to make decisions and requesting time to take necessary actions or required behaviors. Conducting transactions that are not appropriate for the client's age, especially for underage clients. Previous conviction for fraud, tax evasion or other offenses. Being under investigation or being associated with criminals. Having a person authorized to sign the company's accounts without sufficient justification. Conducting financial activities and transactions that are not in line with due diligence procedures. Declaring income that does not correspond to their assets or financial transactions. Indicators related to Legal Entities and Arrangements: Long period of inactivity after incorporation, followed by a sudden and unexplained increase in the volume of activity and financial transactions. Absence of any information on the internet or popular social media platforms. Registration under a name that does not refer to the company's activity. Registering under a name similar to another company, especially well-known multinationals. The company's registered address does not match the identification model. The address is not verifiable or accessible. The company's address is shared with several other companies or legal arrangements, indicating that it may be used as a mailbox address only. Lack of an active role for the company's CEO. Declaring a large number of bona fide beneficiaries. Authorizing numerous authorized signatories without sufficient explanation or business justification. Incorporating in a country considered high risk for money laundering and terrorist financing. Incorporating in a country with favorable tax laws. Regularly sending money to low-tax countries or international business or financial centers. Conducting financial activities and transactions that are disproportionate to the size and nature of the company. Conducting a large number of transactions with a small number of beneficiaries. Conducting a small number of high-value transactions with a small number of beneficiaries. Conducting regular transactions with international companies without commercial justification. Establishing relationships with foreign professional intermediaries in the absence of business activities in the country where the professional intermediary operates. Receiving disproportionate amounts of capital funding after incorporation, which is spent or transferred in a short period of time with no business purpose. Maintaining a near-zero bank balance, despite frequent incoming and outgoing transactions. Incorporating in a country that does not require companies to report real beneficiaries to a centralized registry or allows for shareholder anonymity. Operating using bank accounts in countries other than the country where the company is registered without a clear justification. Engaging multiple shareholders, each with an ownership interest just below the minimum threshold required for declaration or enhanced due diligence. Indicators related to Transactions: Executing financial transactions without a legitimate business justification. Transactions involving two legal persons with the same executives, shareholders, or real beneficiaries. Sending or receiving funds from a foreign country without a clear relationship between the country and the client. Unjustified use of powers of attorney or other authorization processes, (e.g., use of representative offices) Unwarranted use of trusts, and unclear or unwarranted relationships between the beneficiaries and the trustee. Conclusion The issuance of the guiding manual by the Central Bank of Egypt marks a significant step toward enhancing transparency and mitigating financial crimes. By implementing the prescribed measures, banks can strengthen their due diligence frameworks, ensuring compliance with regulatory obligations while contributing to global efforts against money laundering and terrorist financing. Written by: Mona Osama  &  Amr Lotfy FAQs: What is the purpose of the Central Bank of Egypt's (CBE) new Guiding Manual on Identifying Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs)? The manual, issued on January 8, 2025, aims to establish a robust regulatory framework for banks in Egypt. Its primary goals are to enhance transparency, combat financial crimes, and ensure compliance with international anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) standards. This initiative helps align Egypt’s financial sector with global transparency efforts. What is the definition of an Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) according to the manual? The manual defines a UBO as "any natural person who ultimately owns or exercises actual control over a client, either directly or indirectly, or on whose behalf transactions are conducted". It emphasizes that legal ownership and ultimate beneficial ownership are distinct concepts, as actual control is the determining factor. What are some common techniques used to conceal Ultimate Beneficial Ownership? The manual highlights various methods used to obscure UBO identities, facilitating illicit financial activities. These include declaring false UBOs, utilizing shell or dormant companies, establishing complex ownership structures, and appointing nominee shareholders or directors. Other techniques involve bearer shares, fraudulent loans, and fictitious invoices. What are the key regulatory requirements for banks regarding UBO identification? Banks are required to incorporate several measures into their internal procedures. These include verifying the ownership and control structure of clients by collecting necessary documentation. They must also identify and verify UBOs by applying due diligence measures, and continuously monitor and update customer information based on the risk of UBO concealment. How does this new manual align Egypt's financial sector with international standards? The issuance of this manual aligns Egypt's financial sector with global transparency standards. It is a significant step towards enhancing transparency and mitigating financial crimes, ensuring compliance with international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. By implementing these measures, banks strengthen their due diligence frameworks and contribute to global efforts against financial illicit activities.

Egypt’s New Medical Liability Law (2025) Medical liability, also known as medical malpractice, refers to the legal responsibility of healthcare providers for harm caused to patients due to their actions or omissions during medical care. Replacing Law No.17 of 1986, the legislator intervened with the adoption of Law No. 13 of 2025, marking a fundamental transformation from the earlier provisions, which provided a general and limited framework for regulating medical conduct. I) An Improved Framework for Patient Protection One of the main purposes is to protect patients from potential malpractice. Hence, the law provides for the following: Right to safe medical care (Article 2): Ensures access to medical care in accordance with medical and ethical standards, such as transparency towards the patient. Strict conditions to surgical interventions (Article 7): The law specifies the conditions that must be met for medical practitioners to perform surgical interventions. Prompt review of complaints (Article 13): Any patient’s complaint must be reviewed by a technical subcommittee. Amicable dispute resolution (Article 15): Patients may resort to amicable dispute resolution through conciliation committees, in order to avoid lengthy legal proceedings. Access to compensation (Article 20): This article launches a state-managed insurance fund aiming to compensate patients for medical errors. Even though the principal goal is to protect patients, it is equally important to acknowledge the progress in terms of protection for medical practitioners, providing for a more thorough and just medical liability system.     II) Efficient Safeguard of the Medical Profession The new legislation is also designed to secure legal safeguards for medical practitioners. Accordingly, the law provides the following: Categorization of errors (Article 4): Unlike the previous law, the new one distinguishes between different types of errors, therefore offering a safer environment to practice medicine. It separates between unintentional, unavoidable complications from punishable negligence, since the Article defines the cases where practitioners are exempted from medical liability. This protects doctors from being held liable for natural risks. Hence, medical professionals can efficiently practice without fear of being convicted or falsely accused of a grander error rather than the appropriate one in its respective circumstance or a natural risk. Rules regarding reconciliation between patients and medical practitioners (Article 29): The right for victims to request the relevant court or investigation committee to establish its reconciliation with the accused, i.e. the medical practitioner. Technical review before legal action (Article 14): Where a complaint is submitted to the competent sub-committee, the Supreme Committee shall confirm the presence of medical fault and send its report to the complainant, who can then submit an appeal in accordance with the procedures and steps established by decision of the Supreme Committee. State insurance coverage (Article 20): The State provides mandatory insurance to compensate for medical errors, which protects doctors from personal financial difficulties. Other than the protection of the parties involved in any medical liability issue — patients and healthcare providers — there has been a major addition to the relevant legal system. The Supreme Committee for Medical Responsibility was created. III) The Supreme Committee for Medical Responsibility Paves the Road to an Effective Dispute Resolution Process (Articles 9–19) Chapter 3 of the law in question introduces the Supreme Committee for Medical Responsibility, protecting both patients and healthcare providers, ensuring an efficient process. The Committee is composed of medical, forensic, and legal experts tasked with reviewing any alleged error, regardless of its nature. The Prime Minister appoints one of the two medical experts as the chairperson and the other as deputy chairperson.     Article 10 of the law contains the Committee’s following powers and responsibilities: Assess complaints against medical professionals for alleged errors Refer established errors to investigative authorities or professional syndicates Approve reports and amicable settlements emitted by subcommittees (formed to examine specific complaints based on medical specialties) Review appeals against subcommittee reports Coordinate with syndicates and competent bodies to issue awareness guidelines for patients’ rights Create and manage a national database for medical errors While many countries had earlier enacted similar laws such as France with Law No. 2002-1577 of 30 December and Saudi Arabia with The Law of Practicing Healthcare Professions of 2005 ("The 2005 Law"), Egypt’s latest legislation concerning medical liability law is a significant step in reforming the legal framework that governs the health care sector. Even though the legislation is proper to the local, social, and legal context, this new legislation manifests a wider transition towards formalizing the responsibilities of medical professionals and protecting patient rights, aiming to strike a balance between the patient’s health and the physicians’ professional liability.

The Trademark Registration Process in Egypt – Step by Step Trademark registration is essential for businesses seeking to protect their brand identity, products, and services in the Egyptian market. The process is regulated by articles from 63 to 118 of the Egyptian intellectual property law no. 82 for the year 2002, and articles from 70 to 115 of the executive regulation issued by the Prime Minister decree no. 1366 for the year 2003. The Egyptian Trademark Office (TMO) and follows specific legal and procedural steps. The following will outline each phase of the trademark registration process in Egypt, from document preparation to obtaining a certificate of registration, including options for appeals and opposition procedures. Required Documents for Trademark Application To file a new trademark application in Egypt, applicants must prepare and submit the following documents: Power of Attorney (POA) from the applicant. The POA must reflect the name of the applicant as reflected in their ID or Commercial registry if the applicant is a legal entity or a company. In the later event the POA shall indicate the legal form of the company, for example a joint sock company or a limited liability company ..etc. the POA must be signed, legalized and notarized at the Egyptian Consulate in the country of the applicant. Commercial Registration or Incorporation Documents: Includes the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incorporation, or Memorandum of Association, duly legalized and notarized (if available). Trademark Logo: A clear copy of the trademark/logo. Specification of Goods or Services: A list describing the relevant  goods/services to be covered. The wording of the specification of the relevant goods or services must be according to the wording of NICE classification. NICE Classification is an international standard classification of goods and services. The Nice Classification is based on a multilateral treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO. Priority Document (if applicable): if the applicant has filed the same trademark in a signatory country to  Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the applicant is entitled to claim the priority when filing the same trademark within six months from the date of the filing in the country of origin[i].  The applicant shall annex an official true copy of the application as filed in the country of origin along with a certified translation into Arabic. Although article 4/D of Paris convention states that the copy of the priority document, certified as correct by the trademark office in the country of origin does not need any further authentication step, but the examiners in the Egyptian trademarks office occasionally require the priority document to legalized and notarized, along with a certified Arabic translation. Note: Documents (1) and (2) can be submitted within six months from the application filing date according to article 73 of the executive regulation. Failure to submit them within this statutory grace period will result in the application being considered lapsed. For claiming conventional priority, according to article 4/C of Paris Convention, and article 75 of Egyptian IP law and article 74 of the executive regulations, the application must be filed in Egypt within six months from the original filing date in the country of origin. While article 4/d (3) of Paris convention provides a statutory period of three months for submitting the priority document, article 73 of the executive regulations provides extended statutory period of six months for filing the priority documents in the subsequent application in Egypt. Trademark Registration Process The typical duration of the trademark registration process in Egypt is between 12 to 18 months, and involves the following steps: Step 1: Filing the Application Submit the application along with the trademark logo and any available documentation. Step 2: Grace Period for Completing Documents Applicants are granted a six-month grace period to submit late documents such as the POA, incorporation documents, or priority document (if applicable). Step 3: Examination of Application After the grace period, the application is examined by the TMO to ensure compliance with legal requirements. This stage typically takes 6 to 12 months. Step 4: Review by Senior Examiner Before a decision is issued, the case file and proposed examination result are reviewed by a senior examiner. Step 5: Decision Issued The TMO will issue one of the following: Acceptance Conditional Acceptance Refusal Step 6: Appeals for Conditional or Refused Applications If the decision is conditional acceptance or refusal, the applicant has 30 days from the date of acknowledgment of the decision to file an appeal before the Appeals Committee at the TMO. The decision of the Appeals Committee is challengeable within 60 days of the acknowledgment receipt before the Administrative Court with the State Council Judiciary. Step 7: Publication in the Official Gazette Upon acceptance, publication fees are paid. The trademark is then published in the Official Gazette, typically within 2 months. Step 8: Opposition Period Third parties with a legitimate interest have 60 days from the date of publication to file an opposition, the opposition must be grounded. Step 9: Opposition Procedure If an opposition is filed, the applicant is notified within 30 days. The applicant then has 30 days from the date of notification to submit a response to the opposition. Step 10: Opposition Outcome and Further Appeal If the Opposition Committee accepts the opposition and refuses the application: The applicant has 60 days from acknowledgment of the decision to file an appeal before the Administrative Court. Step 11: The Registration, No Opposition or Unsuccessful Opposition If no opposition is filed, or if an opposition is resolved in favor of the applicant: The applicant proceeds to pay the registration fees. A certificate of registration is issued within 15–20 working days. Step 12: Appeal Against Appeal Committee Decision If the Appeal Committee at the TMO refuses the trademark, the applicant can still appeal to the Administrative Court within 60 days from the acknowledgment of the refusal decision. The Administrative Court examines the application comprehensively on the merits. The total process of trademark registration following the steps above typically takes around 12 to 18 months. With careful preparation and legal compliance, businesses can navigate the Egyptian trademark system effectively and protect their intellectual property in one of the Middle East’s key markets. [i] < https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/288514 > accessed on 25 May 2025