Trade marks and copyrights in Haiti are governed by statutory law. Trade marks are primarily governed by the Law of July 17, 1954 on trade marks (and related regulations/practice before the Haitian IP office), while copyright and related rights are governed by the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights. Together, these texts form the core legal framework for intellectual property in Haiti, setting out the rules on ownership, protection, enforcement, assignments and licensing.

Haiti is a member of several key international treaties and conventions governing trade marks and copyright, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the TRIPS Agreement under the World Trade Organization. These international instruments are generally considered self-executing in Haiti upon ratification, although their practical application and enforcement are carried out through domestic legislation and administrative practice. The rights of foreign trade mark and copyright holders in Haiti are governed by these international treaties, which ensure national treatment, as well as by Haitian statutory law, notably the Law of July 17, 1954 on Trade Marks and the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights, which grant foreign right holders the same substantive protections and enforcement mechanisms available to Haitian nationals.

In Haiti, trade mark protection is available for a wide range of signs, provided they serve to identify the commercial source of goods or services and are not functional or misleading.

Word marks and service marks are the most common types of trade marks in Haiti. These include names, slogans or combinations of words used to identify goods or services. Service marks are expressly recognised and are protected under the same legal principles as trade marks used for physical products.

Design marks and logos are also widely protected. These include stylised words, symbols or graphic elements that distinguish a brand visually. In certain cases, logos may benefit from both trade mark protection and copyright protection, provided they meet the originality requirement.

Product marks, labels and packaging may be registered as trade marks if they function as indicators of origin. Packaging and labels are commonly protected in Haiti, particularly in the food and beverage sector. However, protection is limited to features that are distinctive and not dictated by technical or functional necessity.

Trade dress, understood as the overall look and feel of a product or its packaging, may be protected where it is distinctive and consumers associate it with a specific source. Haitian law applies a functionality restriction, meaning that elements necessary for the product’s use or performance cannot be monopolised through trade mark protection.

Collective marks are recognised and may be registered by associations or groups to identify goods or services produced by their members. Certification marks are also permitted and are used to certify that products or services meet certain quality standards or characteristics, rather than identifying a single commercial source.

Geographical indications are protected in Haiti primarily through international treaties to which the country is a party. These indications identify products whose quality or reputation is linked to a specific geographic origin and are protected against misleading use.

Surnames may be registered as trade marks, but only where they have acquired distinctiveness and are capable of identifying a particular commercial source. Common family names are subject to closer scrutiny to avoid unfairly restricting others from using their own names in business.

Industrial designs are generally protected under a separate legal regime and not automatically entitled to trade mark protection. However, an industrial design may qualify for trade mark protection in limited cases where it is non-functional and has become distinctive through use as a brand identifier rather than as a purely aesthetic or technical feature.

With respect to the types of signs that may be registered, Haitian practice primarily recognises traditional trade marks such as words, images and shapes. Non-traditional marks such as sounds, colours alone, scents or motion marks are not expressly regulated and are generally not accepted for registration in practice.

Haitian law does not provide for a separate category of statutorily protected special marks distinct from ordinary trade marks (such as Olympic-related marks in some jurisdictions). Any enhanced protection typically arises from international conventions rather than specific domestic statutes.

Finally, Haiti recognises the famous marks doctrine. Well-known marks that are famous internationally may be protected in Haiti even if they are not registered or yet used locally, provided their reputation can be established and their unauthorised use by a third party would likely cause confusion or unfairly benefit from the mark’s reputation.

In Haiti, a sign qualifies for trade mark protection if it meets several core requirements. First, the mark must be distinctive, meaning it is capable of identifying the commercial origin of goods or services and distinguishing them from those of others. Marks that are generic, purely descriptive, misleading, or contrary to public order or morality are not eligible for protection unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use. Second, the mark must be lawful and non-functional; features that are dictated solely by technical or functional considerations cannot be protected as trade marks. While use in commerce is not required at the time of filing in Haiti, genuine use becomes relevant for maintaining rights over time, as prolonged non-use may expose a registration to cancellation.

A party may establish acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) by demonstrating that, through use, a sign that was initially non-distinctive has come to be recognised by the relevant public as identifying a single commercial source. In practice, this is assessed on a case-by-case basis and may be proven through evidence such as the length and continuity of use of the mark, the extent and geographic scope of sales, advertising and promotional efforts, market presence and recognition, and, where available, consumer perception evidence. The key factors considered in an acquired distinctiveness analysis are whether the relevant consumers associate the sign with a particular undertaking, the duration and consistency of use, the intensity of marketing efforts, and the absence of widespread third-party use of the same or similar signs.

Trade mark owners are granted exclusive rights that allow them to use the mark and to prevent unauthorised third parties from using identical or confusingly similar signs in connection with the same or related goods or services. These rights include, in particular, the right to affix the mark to goods or packaging, to use it in advertising and commercial communications, and to license or assign the mark to third parties. Trade mark owners are also entitled to enforce their rights through civil actions, including claims for infringement, injunctions, damages and the seizure of infringing goods.

These rights are established by statute, principally under the Law of July 17, 1954 on Trade Marks, which sets out the scope of protection, enforcement mechanisms, and rules governing ownership, transfer and licensing of trade mark rights in Haiti.

The rights granted to trade mark owners generally persist for the duration of the registration term, provided that the mark is renewed and not subject to cancellation. However, certain rights may be limited or lost during the term of a mark in cases of non-use, genericide or invalidity. As a result, while statutory rights exist throughout the life of a registered mark, their continued enforceability depends on compliance with use and maintenance requirements under Haitian law.

In Haiti, establishing use of a trade mark requires showing that the sign has been used publicly and commercially as an indicator of origin, and not merely that it appears in commerce. It is therefore necessary to demonstrate that the defendant used the sign as a trade mark, meaning in a manner that allows the relevant public to identify the commercial source of the goods or services (for example, on products, packaging, advertising or commercial documents). Purely descriptive, informational or generic use – such as use intended only to describe the nature, quality or characteristics of the goods or services – does not constitute trade mark use under Haitian trade mark law and does not, by itself, give rise to infringement or opposition.

In Haiti, there is no legally recognised or required symbol for indicating that a trade mark is registered or that trade mark rights are claimed. Haitian trade mark law does not provide for, regulate or require the use of symbols such as ® or superscript TM, and trade mark rights are not dependent on the use of any notice or marking. Consequently, there are no legal requirements to be met in order to use such symbols, and no legal consequences arise from failing to provide notice of trade mark ownership. While trade mark owners may choose to use symbols as a matter of commercial practice or international consistency, such use has no legal effect under Haitian law and does not affect the validity, scope or enforceability of trade mark rights in Haiti.

A trade mark – particularly a logo or figurative mark – may also benefit from protection under copyright law or related rights, provided it meets the originality threshold as an artistic work; in practice, this results in parallel and cumulative protection, with trade mark law protecting the sign as an indicator of commercial origin and copyright protecting the creative expression. Where a trade mark consists of a surname, Haitian law does not recognise a direct interaction between trade mark rights and moral rights in the copyright sense, as moral rights attach to authors of protected works rather than to names as such; however, surnames may raise issues of personality rights or unfair competition if used in bad faith. Haitian trade mark law does not limit the scope of trade mark protection based on the existence of copyright or related rights, nor does copyright law restrict the ability to register or enforce a trade mark; each regime operates independently, subject to its own conditions, and conflicts are resolved on a case-by-case basis through general principles such as good faith and prior rights.

Copyright protection is governed by the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights, which sets out statutory categories of protected works. Eligible works include, in particular, literary works (such as books, articles, lectures and speeches), musical works (with or without words), dramatic and choreographic works, audiovisual works, works of drawing, painting, sculpture, engraving and other graphic or plastic arts, architectural works, photographic works, computer software, databases (where the selection or arrangement of content is original), and collective or collaborative works, provided that the work is original and expressed in a tangible form. These categories are expressly provided for by statute and are interpreted broadly in line with international copyright principles. Industrial designs, as such, are not automatically protected by copyright; however, they may benefit from copyright protection only to the extent that they qualify as original artistic works, meaning that protection covers the creative artistic expression and not the purely functional or industrial features. Where an industrial design is dictated primarily by technical or functional considerations, copyright protection will not apply, and protection – if any – must be sought under the industrial design regime rather than copyright law.

To qualify for copyright protection under the applicable legal framework, a work must meet the following cumulative requirements:

• Originality: The work must be the result of the author’s own intellectual creation and reflect a minimal degree of creativity. Purely mechanical, routine or commonplace expressions are not protected.
• Authorship: The work must be created by a natural person (or identified author(s) in the case of collaborative or collective works). Copyright initially vests in the author, subject to any valid written transfer.
• Fixation in a tangible form: The work must be expressed in a form that allows it to be perceived, reproduced or communicated, either directly or with the aid of a device. Ideas, concepts or methods as such are not protected.
• Expression, not ideas: Protection extends only to the original expression of an idea, and not to the underlying ideas, procedures, systems or methods of operation.
• Lawful subject matter: The work must fall within a category of protectable works recognised by copyright law and must not be excluded due to its purely functional, technical or utilitarian nature.

Where these conditions are met, copyright protection arises automatically, without any requirement of registration or formal notice.

Authorship is defined by statute under the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights and refers to the natural person who creates the work. To be considered an author, a person must have made an original intellectual contribution to the expression of the work; copyright initially vests in that author. Haitian law recognises works made for hire or commissioned works only where there is a clear written agreement providing for the transfer of economic rights; in the absence of such agreement, authorship remains with the natural person creator, even if the work was created within an employment or contractual context (the corporate entity may acquire economic rights but is not the “author” in the moral-rights sense). Authorship cannot be claimed for works not created by a human; works generated solely by artificial intelligence, animals or other non-human agents do not qualify for authorship under the Haitian framework, though human-authored contributions (eg, creative selection or arrangement) may be protected if originality is shown.

Joint authorship arises where two or more natural persons collaborate intentionally in the creation of a work and their contributions are inseparable or interdependent parts of a single whole. The key factors are a shared intent to create a unitary work and original contributions by each contributor. Each joint author holds rights in the entire work and, unless otherwise agreed, may independently exploit the work, subject to an obligation to account to the other co-authors. Ownership shares are generally presumed to be equal, unless a written agreement or clear evidence establishes a different allocation based on the parties’ agreement.

Copyright owners’ rights are expressly defined by statute under the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights. The law grants authors and other rights holders a bundle of economic (patrimonial) rights, including the exclusive right to reproduce the work, distribute it to the public, communicate it or make it available to the public, perform or display it publicly, translate, adapt, arrange or otherwise transform it, and authorise or prohibit any such uses by third parties. These economic rights are generally transferable and licensable and subsist for the duration of the copyright term (subject to statutory limitations and exceptions), after which the work enters the public domain.

The jurisdiction does recognise moral rights, which are also established by statute in the same Decree. Moral rights are personal, inalienable and perpetual (or, at minimum, survive the transfer of economic rights) and include the right of attribution (paternity), the right to respect for the integrity of the work (to object to distortion, mutilation or prejudicial modification) and, in certain circumstances, the right of disclosure. Moral rights remain with the author regardless of any assignment or licensing of economic rights and do not lapse in the same way as economic rights, reflecting their close link to the author’s personality rather than to commercial exploitation.

Term of protection: Copyright protection subsists for the life of the author plus 60 years after death under the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights. For joint works, the term runs from the death of the last surviving author. For collective works or works published under a legal entity’s name, the term is generally 60 years from first lawful publication. Related rights (eg, performers, producers) have distinct statutory terms.

Termination of rights: Copyright is not terminable at will before the end of the statutory term. Rights end only by expiration of the term, waiver or renunciation where permitted, or contractual termination in accordance with the parties’ agreement (eg, breach). The law does not provide a US-style statutory “termination of transfer” right that allows authors to recapture assigned rights after a fixed period.

Scope of termination: Because there is no statutory termination-of-transfer mechanism, not all rights are eligible for termination as a matter of law. Economic (patrimonial) rights may be assigned or licensed and may end according to the contractual terms or upon expiry of the copyright term. Moral rights (eg, attribution and integrity) are inalienable and enduring and therefore cannot be terminated by contract; they remain with the author irrespective of transfers of economic rights.

Types of works: The rules apply broadly across categories of copyrighted works. There are no categories of works that are subject to a special statutory termination regime, and correspondingly no categories excluded from termination beyond the general principle that moral rights are non-terminable and economic rights persist until term expiry or contractual end.

In Haiti, collective rights management is recognised and organised primarily through the Bureau Haïtien du Droit d’Auteur (BHDA), which operates as the national authority responsible for copyright and related rights administration. The system is governed by the Decree of 12 October 2005 on Copyright and Related Rights, which provides the statutory basis for collective management organisations and authorises the collective administration of certain economic rights, particularly in the music and audiovisual sectors (including authors, composers, performers and producers). Under this framework, collective management organisations are empowered to license uses of works on behalf of rights holders, collect and distribute royalties, monitor uses, enforce rights and represent members in infringement actions, subject to oversight by the BHDA. While collective management is most developed for musical works and related rights, the legal framework allows for collective administration in other sectors (such as publishing and visual arts), even if institutional structures in those areas remain less formalised in practice.

Copyright protection in Haiti arises automatically upon creation of an original work fixed in a tangible form, and registration is not required to qualify for protection. Registration is optional but may provide evidentiary benefits, including proof of authorship, date of creation and priority, which can facilitate enforcement, although it is not a prerequisite to bringing a civil action. A copyright register exists and is administered by the BHDA; it is maintained administratively and is not fully available online. Copyrights may be registered by individual authors or legal entities holding economic rights, and foreign applicants are not required by statute to be represented by locally licensed counsel. There are no mandatory formalities, including notices or symbols, and the absence of registration or notice does not affect the existence, validity or enforceability of copyright.

Copyright registration is handled administratively before the BHDA and is optional. An applicant must file a written application identifying the work and the rights holder, provide proof of identity of the author or owner (and, where applicable, evidence of transfer of economic rights), and submit a deposit copy of the work (or a representative sample, depending on the category), together with basic bibliographic information such as title, date of creation, and nature of the work. Applications may be filed by individuals or legal entities, including foreign applicants, and no prior publication is required. Filing fees are payable and are set administratively by the BHDA; they are generally modest and vary depending on the type of work and the service requested, with exact amounts confirmed at the time of filing.

Copyright registration may be refused on absolute grounds where the application fails to meet statutory requirements, notably if the subject matter is not eligible for copyright protection, if it lacks originality, if it is purely functional or technical, or if required formal elements (such as identification of the work, authorship or a deposit copy) are missing or manifestly deficient. Applicants may challenge a refusal, first through administrative review within the copyright authority and, if necessary, by recourse to the competent courts, as there is no specialised copyright tribunal. Clerical errors or incorrect information in an application may generally be corrected or amended upon request, provided the correction does not alter the identity of the work or prejudice third-party rights.

In Haiti, a work protected by copyright, such as a logo, graphic design or stylised word – may also be protected under trade mark law or related rights, provided it independently meets the legal requirements of each regime. Copyright protects the original creative expression, while trade mark law protects the sign insofar as it functions as an indicator of commercial origin, and these protections may coexist cumulatively. Haitian law does not limit the scope of copyright protection because a work is also protected as a trade mark, nor does trade mark protection restrict the application of copyright; each body of law operates independently, subject to its own conditions and purposes, and any overlap is addressed on a case-by-case basis through general principles such as originality, distinctiveness and good faith.

In Haiti, trade mark rights are primarily registration-based: full and enforceable trade mark rights arise through registration with the Trade Mark Office, and mere use of a sign does not confer autonomous trade mark rights as such, although prior use may be relevant under unfair competition principles. Registration provides significant legal benefits, including exclusive nationwide rights, a presumption of ownership and validity, standing to oppose later applications, and a clearer basis for enforcement actions. As to registrability, all marks must be distinctive and not fall under absolute grounds for refusal; descriptive or non-traditional marks (such as trade dress, shapes or product configurations) face a higher threshold and, in practice, must demonstrate acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) to be registrable, whereas inherently distinctive word or figurative marks do not require such proof.

Haiti maintains a national trade mark register administered by the Trade Mark Office, which records pending applications and registrations; the register exists as a matter of law and practice, but public access is limited, as there is no fully searchable online database and records are consulted through administrative searches and, where necessary, the official gazette (Le Moniteur) and physical files. Haiti does not operate separate registers (such as principal and supplemental registers); there is a single register for trade marks. It is standard and strongly recommended practice to conduct a prior trade mark search before filing, focusing on registered and pending marks in the Trade Mark Office records. Because trade mark rights are registration-based and unregistered rights do not arise from mere use, searches typically centre on the official registry, supplemented by company name records, trade name databases and, where relevant, international brand use, given the possibility of conflicts with earlier filings or well-known marks.

In Haiti, a trade mark registration is granted for an initial term of ten years, calculated from the filing date, and may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods. If the renewal is not filed, the registration definitively lapses and cannot be revived; in such case, protection may only be restored by filing a new trade mark application, which will be examined as a fresh filing and may be exposed to third-party rights acquired in the interim. No proof of use or continued use in commerce is required at the time of renewal, as Haiti does not impose use-based renewal formalities; however, registrations remain vulnerable to cancellation actions for non-use, if a declaration of use or non-use was not filed within the first three months of the sixth year of the registration. By contrast, copyright registrations, where applicable, are not subject to renewal, as copyright protection arises automatically upon creation of the work and subsists for the statutory term provided by law, without any maintenance or renewal requirement.

Trade mark application is filed with the the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and may be submitted by individuals, companies or other legal entities, whether Haitian or foreign. The system does not allow multi-class applications: each application must cover one class of goods or services only, in accordance with the Nice Classification, and separate filings are required for additional classes. To apply, the applicant must provide: (i) a clear representation of the mark (word mark or logo/device); (ii) the full name, address and legal status of the applicant; (iii) the list of goods and/or services claimed in the relevant class; and (iv) a power of attorney if the application is filed through a representative. No specimen of use, date of first use, declaration of use, or sworn statement of accuracy is required, as Haiti operates under a first-to-file system and does not condition registration on prior or current use in commerce. Official filing fees are assessed per class, with government fees typically in the range of USD150–200 per application, exclusive of professional fees and any additional costs if applicable. Applicants are required to act through a locally appointed attorney admitted to practice in Haiti, as direct filings are not accepted.

There is no requirement that a trade mark be used in commerce before registration is issued. The Haitian trade mark system follows a first-to-file approach, and no proof of use, declaration of use or specimen is required at the application or registration stage, nor is there any pre-registration grace period tied to use.

The Trade Mark Office does not examine applications on the basis of prior rights. Examination is limited to formal and absolute grounds (such as distinctiveness and legality), and relative grounds – including conflicts with earlier trade marks or other private rights – may only be raised through opposition or cancellation proceedings initiated by third parties.

During the registration process, a trade mark application may be corrected or amended. Permissible amendments generally include the correction of clerical or typographical errors, updates to the applicant’s name or address, or the restriction or clarification of the list of goods or services (for example, by narrowing the scope). To enter an amendment, the applicant must submit a formal written request to the Trade Mark Office, usually through a locally appointed attorney, supported by an updated power of attorney where applicable.

The Haitian trade mark system does not provide a formal procedure to divide a trade mark application during prosecution. Because Haiti requires single-class filings and does not regulate divisional applications by statute or practice, an application cannot be split into separate applications once filed.

Providing incorrect or misleading information in connection with a trade mark application may result in the refusal of the application, the nullity or cancellation of the registration and, in serious cases involving bad faith or fraud, potential civil liability. Issues may be addressed administratively by the Trade Mark Office during examination if the error is detected early, or judicially by the competent courts in the context of opposition, cancellation or enforcement proceedings. Incorrect information may be corrected.

Trade mark registration may be refused on absolute grounds where the mark lacks distinctive character, is descriptive or generic for the designated goods or services, is misleading as to origin, nature or quality, is contrary to public order or morality, or consists of protected symbols (such as national flags, emblems or official insignia) without proper authorisation. The Trade Mark Office also refuses marks that are deceptive, purely functional or otherwise prohibited under the trade mark law.

There is a procedure to overcome objections raised on absolute grounds. The applicant may submit a written response or observations, typically arguing that the mark is inherently distinctive, has a distinctive overall impression or falls outside the scope of the cited prohibition. Where applicable, applicants may also limit or clarify the list of goods or services to address the objection. If the objection is maintained, the refusal may be appealed before the competent courts in accordance with general administrative and judicial procedures.

Haiti does not participate in the Madrid System.

In Haiti, a third party may file an opposition to a trade mark application after publication of the application and before registration, within the statutory opposition period set by the Trade Mark Office (62 days from publication). Extensions of time to file an opposition are not provided for by statute and are not granted in practice; however, parties may pursue private settlement discussions in parallel, and an opposition may be withdrawn by agreement.

With respect to revocation/cancellation, Haitian law does not impose a general statute of limitations for filing cancellation actions against trade marks; actions based on absolute grounds (eg, lack of distinctiveness, illegality) or ownership/bad faith may generally be brought at any time. Copyright protection is not subject to revocation for non-use, but claims challenging ownership or validity may be brought in accordance with general civil law principles.

A third party may file an opposition to a trade mark application after publication of the application and before registration, within the statutory opposition period set by the Trade Mark Office (62 days from publication). Extensions of time to file an opposition are not provided for by statute; however, parties may pursue private settlement discussions in parallel, and an opposition may be withdrawn by agreement.

With respect to revocation/cancellation, Haitian law does not impose a general statute of limitations for filing cancellation actions against trade marks; actions based on absolute grounds (eg, lack of distinctiveness, illegality) or ownership/bad faith may generally be brought at any time.

Any natural or legal person with a legitimate legal or commercial interest may file an opposition to a published trade mark application; the opponent is not required to hold a registered trade mark, as oppositions may be based on earlier unregistered rights, prior use, trade names, company names, copyright or bad faith, in addition to prior registrations. Opponents – particularly foreign parties – must act through a locally admitted attorney or authorised agent, and in practice, legal representation is strongly recommended even for local opponents. Official opposition filing fees are relatively modest (often in the range of USD100–200), while attorneys’ fees typically range from USD500 to USD2,000, depending on the complexity of the case.

Revocation or cancellation proceedings may be initiated by owners of prior rights, affected third parties, or any party demonstrating a legitimate interest; the Trade Mark Office itself does not usually act ex officio to cancel registrations once granted. Standing is generally established by showing a legal, economic or competitive interest, such as ownership or use of a conflicting sign, market presence, or exposure to confusion or unfair competition. In copyright matters, actions may be brought by the author or rights holder, successors in title, or any party whose rights are adversely affected, subject to general civil law admissibility rules.

Opposition procedure is administrative and largely paper-based. An opposition is filed with the Trade Mark Office within the statutory period following publication of the application and must set out the legal and factual grounds relied upon. The applicant is then given an opportunity to submit a written response, and the Trade Mark Office may allow one or more rounds of written observations at its discretion. There is no formal discovery process, no depositions and no oral hearing as a matter of course; oppositions are decided on the basis of written submissions and documentary evidence, rather than motion practice or live testimony.

Revocation or cancellation actions may be brought either before the Trade Mark Office, where the grounds fall within its administrative competence, or before the competent civil courts, particularly where broader issues of ownership, bad faith, unfair competition or damages are raised. Copyright disputes are generally handled by the civil courts rather than through an administrative office.

Partial revocation or cancellation is possible in Haiti. A registration may be cancelled only in respect of certain goods or services – for example, where non-use is established for part of the specification or where a ground for invalidity affects only a limited portion of the registration – allowing the remaining goods or services to remain protected.

In Haiti, decisions of the Trade Mark Office may be challenged through administrative and judicial remedies. An applicant or interested party may first seek reconsideration or clarification from the Trade Mark Office where procedural issues or manifest errors are involved, although there is no specialised trade mark appeal board. Appeals against final decisions of refusal, opposition or cancellation are generally brought before the competent civil courts, following the ordinary rules of administrative and civil litigation.

A decision must be final to be appealable; interlocutory or procedural communications issued during examination are not normally subject to appeal. Appeals are filed before the civil courts with territorial jurisdiction over the Trade Mark Office, and the court reviews the legality and, where appropriate, the merits of the decision. Timescales vary significantly depending on court workload, but first-instance proceedings typically take between 12 and 24 months, with further appeals potentially extending the process by several additional years.

Amendment is possible in revocation or cancellation proceedings, but only in a limited manner. The owner of the challenged trade mark may amend the registration by restricting or narrowing the list of goods or services in order to address the grounds raised, most commonly in cases based on partial non-use or limited conflict. Amendments that would expand the scope of protection, alter the mark itself or otherwise affect the identity of the registration are not permitted. Such amendments are typically made through written submissions before the Trade Mark Office or the competent civil court, as applicable, and are subject to acceptance by the deciding authority.

In Haiti, revocation or cancellation actions and infringement actions are generally not heard together, as they follow separate procedural tracks and may be brought before different fora.

In Haiti, there is no standalone or expedited administrative procedure specifically dedicated to the revocation or cancellation of trade marks or copyrights filed fraudulently. Fraudulent filings are addressed through opposition, cancellation or invalidity actions brought before the Trade Mark Office or, more commonly, before the competent civil courts, where fraud, bad faith or misrepresentation may be raised as substantive grounds. If an application becomes subject to an investigation or judicial challenge based on alleged fraud, the Trade Mark Office may suspend examination or registration in practice, although suspension is not expressly codified and depends on the circumstances and the authority seized. Where fraud is established, the consequences may include refusal of the application, nullity or cancellation of the registration, loss of any associated rights, and potential civil liability, including damages, under general principles of Haitian civil and unfair competition law.

In Haiti, the assignment of a trade mark or copyright must be made in writing and signed by the assignor, and in practice, trade mark assignments are recordable with the Trade Mark Office to be effective against third parties, although recordal is not strictly constitutive of the transfer. Trade marks may be assigned whether the mark is registered or pending, and no approval from the Trade Mark Office is required beyond recordal; valid consideration is not a formal legal requirement, although the underlying contract must comply with general civil law principles. Copyright assignments must also be in writing and may be total or limited, subject to the scope expressly agreed by the parties, and may be recorded where applicable for evidentiary purposes.

Partial assignments are permitted in Haiti. A trade mark may be assigned for only part of the goods or services for which it is registered or applied for, provided that the assignment does not result in deception or confusion for the public. Copyright assignments may likewise be partial – for example, limited to certain economic rights, territories or durations – as expressly stated in the assignment agreement.

Both trade mark and copyright rights are transmissible upon death. Trade marks form part of the deceased’s estate and pass to heirs or beneficiaries in accordance with succession law, subject to recordal of the change of ownership. Copyrights are similarly transmissible mortis causa, with economic rights passing to heirs for the remainder of the statutory term, while moral rights continue to be protected in accordance with applicable law.

Trade mark and copyright licences must be granted in writing and signed by the licensor, in accordance with general contract law principles. A trade mark may be licensed whether it is registered or the subject of a pending application, and no prior approval from the Trade Mark Office or any copyright authority is required; however, recordal of a trade mark licence with the Trade Mark Office is recommended to ensure enforceability against third parties. Copyright licences likewise do not require administrative approval, but written form is essential to define the scope of the rights granted.

Haitian law allows the grant of exclusive, non-exclusive and sole licences for both trade marks and copyrights, subject to the terms agreed by the parties. Licences may be granted for a fixed term or, in principle, on a perpetual basis, provided this does not conflict with mandatory legal rules or public policy, particularly in copyright matters where the duration of economic rights is limited by statute. Licences may include ancillary rights, such as archival, reproduction or storage rights, provided these are expressly stipulated in the licence agreement.

Trade mark applications may be licensed in Haiti. A licence may cover a pending application as well as a registered mark, subject to the same formal requirements, and such licensing is commonly used in commercial arrangements pending registration.

An assignment or licence does not need to be recorded to be valid between the parties, but recordal with the Trade Mark Office is recommended to make it enforceable against third parties. If it is not recorded, the assignee or licensee risks not being recognised as the rights holder vis-à-vis third parties, and a later assignment or licence that is duly recorded in good faith may take priority.

An assignment or licence of a trade mark does not need to be registered or recorded to be valid between the parties, but recordal with the Trade Mark Office is strongly recommended to make the transfer or licence enforceable against third parties. If an assignment or licence is not recorded, the assignee or licensee may face difficulties asserting rights against third parties, including in enforcement actions, and the Trade Mark Office may continue to recognise the original owner as the rights holder on record.

Infringement claims are available for both registered and unregistered trade marks and copyrights, although registration significantly strengthens enforcement. For trade marks, a registered mark benefits from presumptions of ownership and validity, while unregistered marks may be enforced primarily through unfair competition and prior use principles. Copyright protection arises automatically upon creation, and infringement claims do not depend on registration. The types of infringement recognised are primarily direct infringement; concepts akin to contributory or vicarious infringement are addressed through general civil liability principles rather than as formally codified categories.

Trade mark infringement in Haiti consists of the unauthorised use in commerce of an identical or confusingly similar sign in relation to identical or similar goods or services, where such use is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation. To succeed, the claimant must generally establish ownership or prior rights in the mark, unauthorised use by the defendant, and a likelihood of confusion. Copyright infringement consists of the unauthorised reproduction, representation, distribution, adaptation, or communication to the public of a protected work. The claimant must prove ownership of copyright, copying or use of protected elements of the work, and lack of authorisation. Where third parties facilitate or benefit from infringement, liability may arise under general fault-based or complicity principles, though the core elements remain centred on unauthorised use and resulting harm.

Haitian law does not expressly codify dilution by blurring or tarnishment as standalone statutory claims, nor does it contain a specific cyber-squatting statute. However, protection against such conduct may be pursued through broader trade mark infringement doctrines, unfair competition, bad faith registration principles, and civil liability under general law, particularly where a well-known or famous mark is harmed or exploited without authorisation.

With respect to copyright, additional claims may arise from the removal or alteration of copyright management information and from acts facilitating infringement, in line with Haiti’s adherence to international copyright principles. Copyright management information is generally understood to include information identifying the author, the work, the rights holder, and the terms of use. Remedies for misuse or removal of such information, as well as for unauthorised technological circumvention, are pursued through civil actions based on infringement, unfair competition and general civil liability, rather than through a detailed statutory regime comparable to specialised WIPO treaty implementations.

In Haiti, whether use of a trade mark or a copyrighted work constitutes infringement is assessed primarily on the basis of substantive factual factors developed through law and practice, rather than detailed statutory tests.

For trade marks, the central factor is the likelihood of confusion. In assessing this, the authorities consider, among other elements, the similarity of the signs, the similarity of the goods or services, the distinctiveness and recognition of the earlier mark, the nature of the relevant public, and the manner and context in which the sign is used in commerce. Bad faith, intent to mislead, and the overall impression created by the signs may also be taken into account. These factors are not exhaustively codified in statute but derive from general principles of trade mark law and judicial interpretation.

For copyright, infringement is determined by examining whether protected elements of a work have been reproduced, adapted, distributed, or communicated to the public without authorisation. Key factors include the originality of the work, the existence of access to the work by the alleged infringer, and the substantial similarity between the protected elements of the works. Consideration is also given to the scope of any authorisation or exception. As with trade marks, these criteria are not set out in a detailed statutory checklist but are applied by courts based on general copyright principles and international norms.

In Haiti, there are no strict statutory prerequisites to filing a trade mark or copyright infringement lawsuit. Neither the issuance of a formal demand or cease-and-desist letter, nor prior mediation or alternative dispute resolution, is legally required before commencing proceedings, although such steps are commonly taken in practice for strategic and evidentiary reasons. Trade mark registration is not a prerequisite to bringing a claim, but registration significantly facilitates enforcement by establishing presumptions of ownership and validity; copyright protection arises automatically upon creation and does not depend on registration.

Restrictions on the assertion of trade mark or copyright rights arise from general principles of civil law, unfair competition and abuse of rights. Rights holders must act in good faith and may be exposed to liability where enforcement actions constitute abuse, bad faith or unfair competition, such as making knowingly unfounded allegations, engaging in harassment or seeking to improperly exclude competitors. While Haiti does not have specific groundless threats provisions or a detailed competition-law-based misuse doctrine for intellectual property, courts may sanction abusive or anti-competitive conduct under general civil liability and commercial law principles.

Trade mark and copyright infringement proceedings are brought before the competent civil courts, typically the courts of first instance with territorial jurisdiction over the defendant or the place where the infringement occurred. There is no specialised intellectual property court or administrative tribunal with jurisdiction over infringement matters, and criminal courts may also be seized where the infringement constitutes a criminal offence under applicable law.

Before filing a lawsuit, costs typically arise in connection with preliminary enforcement steps, such as drafting and sending warning or cease-and-desist letters, conducting investigations and evidence collection, obtaining certified copies of registrations or official records, notarisation of documents, translations where required, and, in some cases, bailiff or expert fees. While the law does not expressly require representation by a lawyer, in practice parties in trade mark and copyright litigation are represented by attorneys, as court procedure and pleadings are formal and legal representation is effectively necessary.

Foreign trade mark and copyright owners may bring infringement claims in Haiti. There is no nationality or domicile requirement to access the courts. For trade marks, registration in Haiti is not strictly required to bring an action, but a local registration provides stronger and more straightforward protection; foreign marks may otherwise be enforced through prior rights, reputation or unfair competition principles. Copyright protection does not depend on registration, and foreign works are protected in Haiti in accordance with international conventions to which Haiti is a party, provided the work qualifies for protection under those instruments.

There is no formal statutory mechanism specifically labelled as declaratory judgment proceedings for trade mark or copyright non-infringement. However, an alleged infringer may, in appropriate circumstances, initiate civil proceedings seeking a judicial determination on the existence, scope or validity of the asserted rights, particularly where there is a concrete and current legal dispute, such as following a cease-and-desist letter or threatened enforcement action.

To protect itself, a potential defendant may respond through pre-litigation correspondence contesting the claims, seek cancellation or invalidation of the trade mark at issue, or initiate civil proceedings challenging validity, ownership or enforceability. Protective briefs as a formal procedural tool are not expressly regulated, but defendants may preserve evidence, seek interim judicial measures, or request security or guarantees where provisional remedies are sought by the rights holder. Parallel or defensive proceedings in another competent court may also be initiated, subject to jurisdictional rules, particularly where related contractual, ownership or unfair competition issues are involved.

There is no specialised small-claims procedure or dedicated alternative forum specifically designed for low-value trade mark or copyright disputes. Such claims are generally heard by the ordinary civil courts, regardless of the monetary value involved, following standard civil procedure rules.

That said, parties may voluntarily resort to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation or conciliation, either privately or through recognised arbitration and mediation centres, where the dispute is contractual or commercial in nature and the parties agree to submit the matter. These mechanisms are not mandatory, are not specific to intellectual property, and do not replace court jurisdiction unless expressly agreed by the parties.

Decisions of the Trade Mark Office or any copyright authority have an important evidentiary and procedural impact on infringement actions but are not strictly binding on the civil courts. A valid trade mark registration or an administrative decision confirming registration creates a strong presumption of ownership and validity, which civil courts will generally take into account when assessing infringement claims. Conversely, a decision refusing, cancelling or invalidating a registration will significantly weaken or defeat an infringement claim based on that registration.

Civil courts retain independent jurisdiction to assess infringement, validity and liability and are not formally bound by administrative determinations. However, in practice, courts give considerable weight to final and unchallenged decisions of the Trade Mark Office, and infringement proceedings may be stayed or influenced pending the outcome of related administrative or judicial proceedings concerning validity.

A counterfeit trade mark generally consists of the unauthorised use of a mark that is identical to, or indistinguishable from, a protected trade mark in relation to identical or similar goods or services, with the intent to mislead consumers as to origin. Copyright counterfeiting refers to the unauthorised reproduction, distribution or commercialsation of protected works, typically on a commercial scale, without the consent of the rights holder. Counterfeiting is addressed through general trade mark and copyright legislation, unfair competition rules and criminal law provisions. Special procedures may include seizure of infringing goods, injunctions, damages, and destruction of counterfeit products. Counterfeiting may give rise to criminal liability, including fines and imprisonment, particularly where the acts are intentional and carried out for commercial purposes.

Bootlegging in Haiti generally refers to the unauthorised fixation, reproduction, distribution or commercial exploitation of live performances, audiovisual works or sound recordings, especially where recordings are made without the consent of the performer or rights holder. While Haitian law does not use highly detailed statutory definitions of bootlegging, such conduct is covered by copyright and neighbouring rights provisions, as well as general criminal and civil liability rules. Remedies include civil actions for injunctions and damages, seizure of illicit copies and, in serious or commercial cases, criminal sanctions against the infringing party.

There are no highly specialised procedural rules that apply exclusively to trade mark or copyright proceedings. Such cases are generally governed by ordinary civil procedure, with intellectual property disputes handled in the same procedural framework as other commercial or civil matters.

Holding a trade mark registration provides meaningful litigation advantages. A valid registration creates presumptions of ownership, validity, and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services covered, thereby shifting the burden to the alleged infringer to challenge validity or priority. While Haitian law does not establish an explicit incontestability period after which all defences are barred, certain challenges, particularly those based on priority or ownership, become more difficult once a registration is long-standing and uncontested. Copyright protection does not depend on registration, but where a work is registered or deposited, it may facilitate proof of authorship and date of creation in litigation.

The typical costs of bringing a trade mark or copyright infringement action to conclusion at first instance vary widely depending on the complexity of the case.

A range of defences may be raised against trade mark infringement, although they are not always exhaustively codified in statute and are largely derived from general trade mark principles, civil law and judicial practice.

Common defences include priority and prior rights, where the defendant proves earlier use or ownership of a sign pre-dating the claimant’s rights; non-use or abandonment, where the claimant’s registration has not been genuinely used for a continuous period (generally five years), leading to vulnerability to cancellation; licence or consent, where the use is authorised by the trade mark owner; and bad faith, where the claimant’s registration or enforcement is shown to be abusive or dishonest. Defences akin to fair use, such as descriptive use in good faith to describe characteristics of goods or services, as well as functionality, may also be raised where the sign consists of elements necessary for technical or commercial use. Use of one’s own name or trade name, absence of likelihood of confusion, and defences based on acquiescence, estoppel or abuse of rights under general civil law may also apply. While parody or satire is not expressly regulated as a trade mark defence, arguments based on lack of confusion, freedom of expression or absence of commercial intent may be considered.

These defences are partly reflected in statutory provisions, particularly those relating to non-distinctiveness, non-use and validity, and partly grounded in general civil law and unfair competition principles rather than detailed trade mark-specific statutes. Some defences, such as successful cancellation for non-use or lack of validity, may constitute a total bar to liability, while others, such as fair or descriptive use or acquiescence, may limit or defeat liability depending on the circumstances and the evidence presented.

There is no comprehensive, codified “fair use” doctrine comparable to that found in some common law jurisdictions. Instead, permissible uses of trade marks and copyrighted works without the owner’s consent are assessed through a combination of statutory exceptions, where they exist, and general principles of civil law, good faith and proportionality. For trade marks, descriptive or informational use made in good faith and not as a badge of origin may be tolerated, particularly where the use is necessary to describe characteristics of goods or services. For copyright, limited exceptions exist for purposes such as private use, education, quotation or information, and the analysis focuses on whether the use is justified by its purpose, is limited in scope and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. These factors are not articulated as a fixed statutory checklist but are derived from general legal principles and international norms.

Haitian law does not expressly define parody or satire as standalone copyright exceptions. However, uses that may be characterised as parody or satire can, in practice, be assessed under broader concepts such as quotation, commentary or freedom of expression, provided the use is transformative in nature, does not substitute for the original work and does not cause disproportionate harm to the author’s economic interests.

Similarly, there is no explicit free-speech-based exception to trade mark or copyright infringement in Haitian statutes. Nevertheless, courts may take into account constitutional principles relating to freedom of expression and the public’s right to information when assessing alleged infringement, particularly where the use is non-commercial, informational or critical in nature, and where there is no likelihood of confusion or undue prejudice to the rights holder.

In Haiti, the exhaustion of trade mark rights is recognised in principle through the doctrine of first sale, although it is not exhaustively codified in detailed statutory provisions. Once goods bearing a trade mark have been lawfully placed on the market by the trade mark owner or with its consent, the owner’s rights in respect of those specific goods are generally exhausted, meaning the owner may not oppose their subsequent resale, distribution or commercial circulation. Exhaustion is subject to limitations, and the trade mark owner may still object where there are legitimate reasons, such as alteration of the goods, impairment of their condition, or use that damages the reputation or distinctiveness of the mark.

Copyright exhaustion is likewise recognised in principle. Following the first authorised sale or other lawful transfer of ownership of a physical copy of a copyrighted work, the copyright owner is generally barred from controlling further distribution of that specific copy. This doctrine applies primarily to tangible copies, such as books, CDs or artworks. Digital content is treated more restrictively, as the transfer of digital files typically involves reproduction rather than mere resale, and copyright owners may therefore retain control over subsequent distributions of digital works, subject to the terms of applicable licences and general copyright principles.

A trade mark or copyright owner may seek injunctive relief under general civil procedure and intellectual property principles. Available measures include interim or preliminary injunctions ordering the cessation of infringing acts, seizure or sequestration of infringing goods, preservation of evidence, prohibition of importation or distribution, and, in appropriate cases, orders affecting commercial operations such as the freezing of assets or bank accounts when linked to the alleged infringement. Courts may also order the destruction of infringing goods or corrective measures, including notices or publication of the decision. Judges have broad discretion in granting and tailoring injunctive relief, and such measures are generally awarded where they are necessary to prevent imminent or ongoing harm.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the trade mark or copyright owner must typically demonstrate a prima facie case of infringement or likelihood of success on the merits, the existence of imminent or irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied by damages alone, and the urgency of the situation. Courts may also consider the balance of hardships between the parties and, where relevant, the public interest, particularly in cases involving consumer protection or freedom of expression. A defendant may oppose a preliminary injunction by challenging the validity or ownership of the asserted rights, disputing the existence of infringement or urgency, showing absence of irreparable harm, invoking delay or acquiescence by the claimant, or raising equitable considerations such as bad faith, abuse of rights, or disproportionality of the requested measures.

Monetary remedies available to trade mark and copyright owners are primarily grounded in general civil liability and intellectual property principles rather than detailed statutory damage schemes. Remedies typically include compensation for actual damages suffered, such as loss of sales, harm to reputation or unjust enrichment of the infringer, and courts may also order the disgorgement or accounting of profits where the infringer has derived a measurable commercial benefit from the infringement. In cases involving wilful infringement, bad faith or counterfeiting, courts may award higher damages within the framework of full compensation, although there is no formal system of statutory or automatically enhanced damages. Judges have broad discretion in assessing and ordering monetary remedies and take into account factors such as the seriousness of the infringement, its duration, the scale of the infringing activity, the infringer’s intent, and the actual prejudice suffered by the rights holder.

There are no rigid statutory caps or formulas governing the amount of damages awarded. Damages are typically calculated on the basis of proven loss, reasonable royalties, unjust enrichment or, where precise quantification is difficult, an equitable assessment by the court based on the available evidence. Punitive or exemplary damages are not a distinct feature of Haitian civil law, and awards are intended to compensate rather than punish, subject to proportionality.

Certain monetary remedies are facilitated by registration but are not strictly conditioned on it. A registered trade mark benefits from presumptions of ownership and validity, which simplify proof and may influence the quantum of damages, but Haitian law does not provide for statutory damages that are available only upon registration. Copyright protection and monetary remedies do not depend on registration, although registration or deposit may assist in evidentiary matters and assessment of damages.

Each party to trade mark or copyright litigation generally bears its own attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the case, in line with general civil law principles. Court fees and procedural expenses, such as filing fees, bailiff costs and certain administrative charges, are typically advanced by the party initiating the action but may ultimately be allocated by the court in its final decision.

The losing party may be ordered to reimburse the prevailing party for court costs and necessary procedural expenses, but reimbursement of attorneys’ fees is not automatic and is granted only in limited circumstances. Fee-shifting may be awarded where expressly provided by law, or requested by the party during proceedings.

As a general rule, adversarial proceedings are favoured, and the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. It is usually effected through formal service by a bailiff or court officer, in accordance with civil procedure rules.

The legal framework allows for customs intervention against counterfeit goods, including goods infringing trade mark or copyright rights, primarily under general customs, trade and intellectual property enforcement principles. Customs authorities may seize suspected counterfeit goods at the border, either ex officio or following a complaint or alert from a rights holder, particularly where the goods appear to infringe protected marks or works.

To benefit from customs protection in practice, a trade mark or copyright owner typically must take proactive steps, such as filing a request or notice with customs authorities, and providing proof of its rights, detailed information enabling identification of genuine versus counterfeit goods, and contact details for rapid co-ordination. Customs officials may then detain the goods temporarily while the rights holder initiates civil or criminal proceedings within the prescribed timeframe. Parallel imports are not specifically regulated through a detailed statutory regime, and seizures in such cases are generally limited to situations involving counterfeiting, deception or other unlawful conduct rather than the mere importation of genuine goods placed on the market with the rights holder’s consent.

Decisions in trade mark or copyright infringement cases may be appealed in accordance with ordinary civil procedure rules. Judgments rendered at first instance by the competent civil court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal with territorial jurisdiction. The appeal typically reviews issues of law and, to a certain extent, fact, based on the record and the parties’ submissions.

Appeals must be filed within the statutory time limits prescribed by civil procedure, usually calculated from formal service of the judgment. Further appeal on points of law may be available before the Cour de Cassation, which reviews only legal issues and does not re-examine the facts. Copyright infringement decisions follow the same appellate path as trade mark infringement cases and are appealed to the ordinary civil appellate courts, as there is no specialised intellectual property appeal body in Haiti.

An appeal from a trial court decision may be brought once the judgment is final at first instance and has been formally served on the parties. The appeal must be filed within the statutory time limit set by civil procedure, which is calculated from the date of service of the judgment.

The duration of an appeal varies depending on the court’s docket and the complexity of the case, but appeals before the Court of Appeal typically take between 12 and 24 months to be decided. Further review before the Cour de Cassation, limited to points of law, may extend the overall timeline by an additional one to two to four years.

There are no major recent legislative reforms or landmark judicial decisions in trade mark or copyright law that would significantly alter the existing legal framework, but several emerging issues are drawing increasing attention in practice. These include the digitalisation of commerce, online infringement, enforcement challenges at the border, and the practical impact of delays and resource constraints within administrative and judicial institutions. Courts continue to apply traditional intellectual property principles to new commercial realities, often relying on general civil law concepts such as good faith, fault and unfair competition.

With respect to artificial intelligence, Haitian law does not yet contain specific statutory provisions addressing generative AI, authorship of AI-generated works or AI-specific trade mark issues. In practice, ownership of generative AI outputs is assessed under existing copyright principles, which generally require human authorship; purely autonomous AI-generated content is therefore unlikely to qualify for copyright protection in the absence of sufficient human creative input. Questions of infringement involving AI, such as the use of protected works in training datasets or the generation of outputs that resemble existing works, have not yet been the subject of reported Haitian court decisions. As a result, practitioners and courts look to general copyright concepts and may consider persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, international treaties and comparative law when confronted with such issues, although foreign decisions are not binding and are used primarily for guidance rather than direct application.

There are no specific statutory rules governing trade mark or copyright enforcement on the internet, such as formal notice-and-takedown or safe-harbour regimes. Online infringement is addressed under general trade mark, copyright, unfair competition and civil liability principles, and service provider liability is assessed case by case.