Trade mark protection in Somalia is governed by the Trade Marks Ordinance No 3 of 22 January 1955, as extended by Law No 33 of 1975. Somalia operates a registration based system, meaning exclusive rights arise only once a trade mark has been formally registered and can then be enforced against third parties using identical or confusingly similar signs.

The Ordinance covers all core aspects of trade mark protection, including registrability, duration, renewal, non-use, assignment, licensing, and both civil and criminal enforcement. The Somali Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), part of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, administers the system. SIPO applies the Ordinance through implementing regulations, fee schedules, circulars, and established administrative practice, which together govern procedural matters such as filing, examination, publication, opposition, renewal, and recordal of changes. These administrative instruments support the functioning of the system but do not create rights independently; rights arise solely under the Ordinance.

Copyright protection is governed by Copyright Law No 66 of 7 September 1977, which recognises both economic and moral rights in literary, artistic, and related works. The statute applies to both Somali and foreign works, provided the legal conditions are met. However, the institutional mechanisms envisioned by the 1977 Law are not yet fully operational; Somalia currently lacks a functioning copyright registration system, and administrative enforcement remains limited.

As a result, copyright protection is largely asserted through contractual arrangements, evidentiary proof of authorship and ownership, and court proceedings. This reliance reflects the developmental stage of Somalia’s copyright administration rather than an absence of statutory protection.

Overall, Somalia does not operate a common law based intellectual property system. Both trade mark and copyright rights are statutory in nature and are applied through a combination of administrative action and judicial enforcement within an evolving institutional framework.

Somalia is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization and participates in regional intellectual property co-operation through the Lusaka Agreement, which established the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). However, Somalia is not currently part of multilateral trade mark filing systems such as the Madrid System. As a result, trade mark protection is obtained exclusively through national registration procedures administered by SIPO.

Foreign trade mark owners are expressly recognised under the Trade Marks Ordinance. They may register trade marks in Somalia provided they meet the filing requirements and, where necessary, are represented by a locally domiciled agent. Once registered, foreign trade mark owners benefit from the same substantive rights and remedies as domestic proprietors, including exclusive use and access to both civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms.

In practice, foreign rights holders typically secure trade mark protection through national filings. While earlier foreign registrations and historic rights may be submitted as evidence in opposition, invalidity, or infringement proceedings, they do not operate as automatically enforceable titles in Somalia.

Foreign copyright holders are protected under the 1977 Copyright Law on a statutory basis. Because Somalia is not a party to the Berne Convention, international treaty based automatic protection does not apply. Consequently, foreign copyright owners rely on contracts, proof of authorship and ownership, and judicial proceedings to enforce their rights, reflecting the current state of copyright administration and enforcement in Somalia.

Somalia’s trade mark system protects signs capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of others. Registrable marks include word marks, figurative marks, logos, and composite marks that combine verbal and visual elements, provided they can be represented graphically and possess distinctiveness.

Although the Trade Marks Ordinance is historically framed around goods and does not expressly define service marks, the Somali Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) accepts and examines marks used in connection with services. In practice, such marks are treated as source identifiers, reflecting a modernised administrative approach aligned with current commercial realities.

Collective marks are expressly recognised and may be registered by associations or organisations that regulate the use of the mark to indicate the origin, nature, or quality of goods produced by their members. Certification marks, however, are not separately regulated, and Somali law does not establish a distinct statutory framework for them. Geographic terms may be registered as trade marks where they are neither descriptive nor misleading, although there is no dedicated system for the protection of geographical indications.

Trade dress and product packaging can be protected as trade marks when they function as distinctive indicators of commercial origin and are not dictated by technical or functional needs. Industrial designs themselves are not registrable as trade marks, unless specific design elements independently serve as source identifiers and are not driven by functional or aesthetic requirements. Surnames may also be registered, provided they are distinctive, non-misleading, and subject to the good faith rights of others with the same name.

The law does not expressly recognise non-traditional marks such as sound, scent, motion, or colour only marks. In practice, protection is limited to visually representable signs, and there is no established administrative or judicial practice supporting non-traditional marks. While Somali law does not codify a famous marks doctrine, evidence of prior reputation or international recognition may be relied upon in opposition or invalidity proceedings, particularly where bad faith or likelihood of confusion is alleged.

To qualify for trade mark protection in Somalia, a mark must be distinctive, lawful, and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others. Marks that are generic, descriptive, misleading, contrary to public order or morality, or that conflict with earlier rights are not eligible for registration. Use in commerce is not required for obtaining a registration.

However, a registered mark may become vulnerable to cancellation if it is not used for a continuous period of three years. Although not expressly set out in legislation, acquired distinctiveness can be recognised in practice when evidence demonstrates that a mark has become associated with a particular commercial source through sustained and consistent use.

Relevant evidence of acquired distinctiveness may include the duration and extent of use, market presence, advertising and promotional efforts, consumer recognition, and the absence of similar marks in the marketplace. Distinctiveness is assessed by SIPO during the examination process and, where contested, ultimately by the courts.

Registration grants the trade mark owner the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with the goods for which it is registered. It also allows the owner to prevent unauthorised use of identical or confusingly similar signs on identical or similar goods where such use is likely to cause consumer confusion. These statutory rights arise under the Trade Marks Ordinance No 3 of 1955.

The rights include the ability to bring civil actions for infringement, seek injunctive relief, and pursue criminal remedies in cases involving counterfeiting or deceptive practices. Protection is limited to the goods specified in the registration. Trade mark rights continue for the duration of the registration, subject to renewal and ongoing use. However, rights may be lost through non-use, failure to renew, or judicial cancellation.

Use of a trade mark must be genuine, commercial in nature, and connected to the goods or services for which the mark is registered. Such use may include affixing the mark to products or packaging, or using it in advertising and commercial communications. In infringement proceedings, it is generally necessary to show that the defendant has used the sign as a trade mark – that is, as an indicator of origin – rather than in a merely descriptive or informational way. Factors such as context, presentation, and consumer perception are relevant when determining whether the use amounts to trade mark use.

The law does not require trade mark owners to use any specific symbols to indicate registration or ownership. Although symbols such as the “TM” trade mark symbol may be used, they are optional. Not using these symbols does not affect the validity or enforceability of a trade mark. Nevertheless, notice symbols are commonly used in practice and can be relevant when assessing a party’s knowledge or intent in trade mark infringement disputes.

A trade mark may also be protected by copyright when it contains original artistic elements – such as logos or graphic designs – provided that it meets the legal requirements for copyright protection. In such cases, trade mark and copyright protection can coexist, and each right may be enforced independently.

Where a trade mark consists of a surname, registration does not prevent others with the same name from using it in good faith, as long as their use is not misleading or deceptive. Trade mark law does not expressly limit the scope of protection based on copyright or related rights. Instead, any conflicts that arise are addressed on a case‑by‑case basis, guided by principles of unfair competition and consumer protection.

Copyright protection in Somalia is governed by Copyright Law No 66 of 1977. The law protects original literary, artistic, scientific, and cultural works – whether published or unpublished – so long as they represent an original intellectual creation expressed in a perceptible form.

Protected works include books, articles, speeches, musical compositions, dramatic works, cinematographic productions, photographs, drawings, paintings, sculptures, architectural designs, maps, and other artistic or audiovisual creations.

Derivative works – such as translations, adaptations, arrangements, and compilations – are also protected, provided they demonstrate originality and do not infringe upon the rights of the authors of the original works.

Copyright protection applies to the expression of an idea, not to ideas, procedures, methods, or concepts themselves.

Industrial designs are not protected as a distinct category under Somalia’s copyright law. However, artistic aspects of a design may qualify for copyright protection if they are original and not dictated solely by functional requirements.

To qualify for copyright protection in Somalia, a work must be original and created through the author’s intellectual effort. The work must be expressed in a tangible or otherwise perceptible form, whether or not it has been published. Copyright protection arises automatically upon creation and does not require registration. Originality is assessed qualitatively, focusing on the author’s personal contribution rather than on novelty, artistic value, or commercial significance.

Authorship is attributed to the natural person who creates a work. The law does not recognise authorship for works that are not produced by a human creator.

Joint authorship arises when two or more authors collaborate in creating a work and their contributions form a single, integrated whole. In such cases, each joint author holds rights in the entire work, and any exploitation of it generally requires agreement between all co‑authors, unless they have arranged otherwise. Where the individual contributions are distinct and separable, each author retains rights only in their own contribution.

The law also recognises works created within the scope of employment or commissions, including those produced for the state or public institutions. In practice, ownership of these works is primarily determined by the terms of the relevant contract, as legislation does not set out a comprehensive default regime governing works created by employees or commissioned creators.

The 1977 Law grants authors both economic and moral rights. Economic rights include the exclusive ability to reproduce, publish, distribute, translate, adapt, perform, broadcast, and otherwise communicate the work to the public. Moral rights include the right to be identified as the author and the right to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work that could harm the author’s honour or reputation.

Moral rights are personal to the author and are separate from economic rights. These rights arise automatically under the law and remain in force for the entire duration of copyright protection, subject to statutory limitations and permitted uses.

According to the Copyright Law of 1977, copyright protection for literary, artistic, and scientific works lasts for the lifetime of the author plus 30 years after their death. In the case of joint authorship, the term is calculated based on the death of the last surviving author.

For anonymous or pseudonymous works, as well as works owned by legal entities, the duration of protection is determined by the date of publication or public disclosure, in accordance with statutory provisions. Once the statutory term expires, the work enters the public domain.

The law does not provide an author termination right similar to those found in some common-law jurisdictions. Economic rights end upon the expiration of the statutory protection period or under circumstances explicitly defined by law, while moral rights continue to be protected as prescribed by statute.

The 1977 Law envisions the collective management of copyright in certain sectors, particularly for music and public performances. However, Somalia does not currently have a fully functioning collective rights management organisation.

As a result, collective licensing and royalty collection remain limited in practice. Rights holders typically manage and enforce their rights individually through contractual agreements, direct licensing, or legal action.

Copyright protection arises automatically when a qualifying work is created; registration is not required for rights to exist. Although the law provides for a copyright register and a legal deposit system – requiring publishers to deposit copies of works with designated public institutions – there is currently no fully operational or publicly accessible registration system. As a result, registration is not commonly used to establish or enforce rights.

Copyright may be held by both individuals and legal entities. Foreign authors are also eligible for protection under the conditions set out in the statute. However, because there is no functioning registration framework, foreign rights holders rarely pursue formal registration.

The 1977 Law establishes formal requirements for copyright registration and legal deposit, including the obligation to submit copies of published works to designated authorities. It also provides for administrative procedures to record rights. However, these procedures are not fully implemented in practice, and there is no standardised or consistently applied application process. As a result, there are no fixed or routinely applied fees for filing copyright registrations.

The law allows for the refusal of copyright registration when a work does not meet statutory requirements or when formal conditions have not been satisfied. Although decisions regarding registration can, in principle, be subject to administrative or judicial review, such refusals and appeals are uncommon in practice because there is no fully functioning copyright registration authority. As a result, questions of authorship or ownership are usually resolved through evidentiary assessment in court proceedings rather than through administrative refusal mechanisms.

Copyright protection can exist alongside trade mark protection, particularly when a work includes logos or graphic elements that also function as trade marks. Each type of protection is governed by its own legal framework and enforced independently. The law also recognises certain related rights – such as those of performers and producers – though these are not extensively developed in practice. When copyright overlaps with other legal areas, any disputes are resolved by the courts on a case‑by‑case basis, applying the Copyright Law together with general principles of civil, commercial, and unfair competition law.

Trade mark rights in Somalia are primarily obtained through registration under the Trade Marks Ordinance No 3 of 22 January 1955. Registration grants the owner exclusive statutory rights to use the mark for the goods covered and to prevent others from using identical or confusingly similar marks. Although registration is the main foundation for enforceable rights, the Ordinance also acknowledges the significance of prior unregistered use in certain circumstances.

Earlier use may limit or invalidate a later application or registration, especially where the later mark could mislead the public or conflict with an existing mark already in use by another party. Nevertheless, registration remains the most effective method of securing and enforcing trade mark rights in Somalia, as it provides legal certainty and access to both civil and criminal remedies.

Somalia maintains a trade mark register administered by the Somali Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), which operates under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The register records trade mark applications, registrations, renewals, assignments, and other recordable interests.

In practice, access to the register is facilitated directly through SIPO, as there is currently no comprehensive public online search database. As a result, clearance searches are typically conducted through manual reviews of available SIPO records, combined with market investigations.

SIPO provides public notice of trade mark applications and registrations through its official publications, including its journals and online platforms, which serve as the primary sources of publicly accessible information.

A trade mark registration takes effect from the filing date of the application and remains valid for ten years from the date of grant. It may be renewed indefinitely in successive ten‑year periods upon payment of the prescribed renewal fees.

If a registration is not renewed within the required period, it will lapse. The Ordinance allows a six‑month grace period for late renewal, subject to payment of a surcharge. In cases where a registration has been expired for a longer period, renewal may still be possible under the statute; however, such renewal does not affect any rights that third parties may have acquired during the period in which the registration had lapsed.

An application for trade mark registration must be filed with SIPO using the prescribed form and must include the applicant’s details, a clear representation of the mark, and a specification of the goods for which protection is sought. Goods must be classified in accordance with the Ordinance, which provides for 49 classes.

The Ordinance does not permit multi‑class applications. Each application may cover only one class of goods, and separate applications are required for any additional classes. The statutory requirements focus on providing an accurate reproduction of the mark and correctly identifying the goods; specimens of use and declarations of first use are not standard filing requirements.

Government filing fees are payable in line with the applicable fee schedule. Applications may be filed by individuals, legal entities, or associations. Foreign applicants are generally required to appoint a locally licensed attorney or agent to handle procedural and administrative matters on their behalf.

Use of a trade mark in commerce is not required in order to file an application or obtain registration. There is no requirement at the application stage to submit a declaration of use, nor is there a grace period for proving use. However, a registered trade mark may become vulnerable to cancellation if it is not used for a continuous period of three years following the date of grant, or if use ceases for any continuous three‑year period thereafter.

To qualify as use, the activity must be genuine, commercial in nature, and relate to the goods or services for which the mark is registered. Issues of non‑use are generally assessed in the context of enforcement actions or cancellation proceedings, rather than during the examination of the application.

During examination, SIPO evaluates whether an application meets the statutory requirements for registration, focusing primarily on absolute grounds such as distinctiveness, legality, and the absence of deception. Although the Ordinance does not require a full ex officio assessment of relative grounds, in practice SIPO may consider earlier registrations and pending applications when reviewing a new filing.

Conflicts involving prior rights – such as earlier registrations or prior use – are examined more thoroughly in opposition, invalidity, and infringement proceedings, where competing marks are assessed in greater detail.

Applicants may request the correction of formal or clerical errors in a trade mark application, particularly where SIPO has notified them of irregularities. Such amendments are generally limited to non‑substantive matters and must not alter the identity of the mark or materially broaden the scope of the goods or services covered. Any material change affecting the mark itself or the goods specification is not permitted and would require the submission of a new application. In practice, SIPO exercises discretion when allowing corrections, guided by both the statutory framework and established administrative practice.

Somali trade mark law does not expressly provide for the division of trade mark applications. Because applications are limited to a single class, the practical need for division is minimal. When issues arise that affect only part of an application, applicants generally resolve them by narrowing the goods specification or by filing separate applications, rather than through any formal division procedure.

Where an application contains incorrect or incomplete information, SIPO may require the applicant to correct the deficiency. Clerical or formal errors can be remedied upon request. More significant inaccuracies – such as those involving misrepresentation or bad faith – may form the basis for opposition, invalidity, or cancellation proceedings. The consequences of providing incorrect information are determined on a case‑by‑case basis, taking into account the nature of the error and its potential impact on the rights of third parties.

Registration may be refused if a mark does not meet statutory requirements – for example, if it lacks distinctiveness, is descriptive, unlawful, deceptive, or contrary to public order or morality. Registration may also be denied if the mark infringes existing rights or is likely to mislead the public.

Before issuing a refusal, SIPO typically notifies the applicant of any objections and provides an opportunity to respond or correct defects that can be remedied. Decisions refusing registration may be appealed through the relevant administrative or judicial channels.

Somalia is not a member of the Madrid System for the international registration of trade marks. Consequently, international trade mark registrations designating Somalia cannot be obtained. Foreign trade mark owners seeking protection in Somalia must therefore file national applications directly with the Somali Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), in accordance with the Trade Marks Ordinance and the applicable administrative procedures.

From the date of publication, interested parties have 35 days to file an opposition against the application, as stated in the publication notice. The Trade Marks Ordinance does not expressly provide for extensions of the opposition period, nor does it include any formal cooling‑off mechanisms.

In practice, however, parties frequently resolve disputes within the opposition period through consent-based outcomes. These may include withdrawal of the application or the opposition, limitation of goods or services, or the negotiation of coexistence arrangements.

Unlike oppositions, cancellation and nullity actions are not subject to a short statutory filing deadline. A registration becomes vulnerable to cancellation for non-use if the mark has not been used within three years following the date of grant, or if use has ceased for a continuous period of three years. Nullity actions may be initiated where a registration was granted in contravention of the Ordinance.

Oppositions are generally based on grounds relating to registrability or conflicts with earlier rights. In practice, these grounds include lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness, deceptiveness, conflicts with public order or morality, and conflicts with earlier registered marks, pending applications, or prior use that could mislead the public if the later mark were registered.

Under the Ordinance, cancellation occurs primarily through lapse or nullity. The legislation does not provide for a modern administrative re‑examination or invalidation procedure. Instead, challenges to validity must be raised either during the opposition period (where timely) or subsequently through judicial nullity proceedings.

An opposition to a trade mark application may be filed by any interested party within the prescribed opposition period following publication. Although opponents often rely on ownership of an earlier registered or unregistered mark, a trade name, or another prior right to establish interest, they are not required to hold a registered trade mark. Oppositions may also be based on absolute grounds – such as lack of distinctiveness or deceptive character – without the need to demonstrate ownership of an earlier right.

There is no legal requirement for an opponent to be represented by an attorney. However, in practice, oppositions are typically filed through local legal representatives to ensure compliance with procedural rules and evidentiary standards.

Office fees for filing oppositions are generally modest. Attorneys’ fees vary depending on the complexity of the case and the evidence involved, as there are no fixed statutory tariffs for legal costs.

Revocation or cancellation of a registered trade mark must be initiated before the competent courts, as these proceedings are not handled administratively by the trade mark authority. Any party with a legitimate legal or commercial interest – such as the owner of an earlier mark or another affected party – may request revocation or cancellation. Standing is usually established by demonstrating that the continued registration of the mark adversely affects the claimant’s legal or commercial interests. The trade mark authority does not initiate revocation or cancellation proceedings on its own motion.

Opposition proceedings are handled administratively by SIPO following publication of the application. An opponent must file a notice of opposition within the prescribed period, setting out the grounds relied upon. The applicant is then notified and given an opportunity to respond. SIPO will determine the matter based on the parties’ submissions and any supporting materials.

A lapse is recorded on the register once the relevant statutory conditions have been met. Nullity proceedings, by contrast, must be brought before the competent civil court, and any resulting judgment is entered against the registration.

Partial cancellation or partial nullity is also available where only part of the registration is affected.

Decisions issued by the Trade Mark Office – including refusals and other determinations made during the registration process – may be appealed in accordance with the Ordinance. Such appeals are heard by the designated appeals body responsible for industrial property matters, following the procedures set out in the applicable legal framework.

Depending on the nature of the decision and the governing procedural rules, further judicial review by the courts may also be available. The specific time limits and procedural requirements for filing an appeal vary based on the type of decision and the relevant implementing provisions.

Amendments are more commonly encountered during opposition proceedings than in post‑registration court actions. In practice, applicants may choose to narrow or clarify the specification of goods, or correct non‑substantive errors, in order to address objections or resolve an opposition.

In nullity or cancellation proceedings before the courts, amendments typically take the form of partial nullity or partial cancellation, whereby the court limits the scope of the registration to exclude the affected goods or elements.

Infringement actions and validity challenges fall under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. In practice, an accused infringer may raise invalidity or lapse of the right as a defence. The court may then address infringement and validity either together or in sequence, depending on the circumstances of the case.

When validity is central to the dispute, the court will typically determine the validity of the registration before ruling on any final remedies for infringement.

The Ordinance does not provide a standalone administrative procedure for cancelling trade marks specifically on the grounds of fraudulent filing. Instead, allegations of bad faith or fraud in obtaining a registration must be raised either during the opposition period (if still open) or through judicial nullity proceedings.

If the fraudulent conduct goes beyond the filing itself – such as involving counterfeiting or other deceptive use of a trade mark – the Ordinance offers civil and criminal remedies. These include measures such as seizure of goods and the imposition of penal sanctions. These remedies, however, address fraudulent behaviour in the marketplace rather than misconduct in the administrative filing process.

Registered trade marks in Somalia may be assigned by the proprietor to another party pursuant to Article 23 of the Trade Marks Ordinance. An assignment may be made with or without the goodwill of the business, provided that it does not mislead the public or create deception regarding the origin of the goods. Assignments may also cover all or only some of the goods for which the mark is registered.

For an assignment to be effective against third parties, it must be recorded in the trade mark register in accordance with Article 25 of the Ordinance. In practice, recordal is treated as essential for establishing title and ensuring enforceability, particularly where competing claims or enforcement actions arise.

Although the Ordinance does not expressly address the assignment of pending trade mark applications, the Somali Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) accepts such assignments in practice. This is subject to submission of the relevant instrument and subsequent recordal once the application proceeds, reflecting administrative practice rather than explicit statutory regulation.

The Trade Marks Ordinance allows the registered proprietor of a trade mark to authorise third parties to use that mark, in line with the general principles governing the use of registered trade marks. Although the Ordinance does not establish a detailed statutory licensing regime, it recognises licensed use provided that such use does not mislead the public or diminish the distinctive character of the mark.

Licences may be granted on an exclusive or non‑exclusive basis, depending on the contractual terms agreed between the parties. The Ordinance does not impose any mandatory formalities for trade mark licence agreements; accordingly, licensing arrangements are primarily governed by contract law.

In practice, licence agreements often include quality‑control provisions to regulate how the mark is used, even though the Ordinance does not expressly require such measures. While licences are valid between the parties without the need for recordal, recording the licence may be advisable in certain situations.

The Ordinance expressly provides for the recordal of assignments in the trade mark register under Article 25. An assignment must be recorded in order to be effective against third parties. To record an assignment, an application must be submitted to SIPO together with the relevant assignment instrument and payment of the prescribed fee.

The Ordinance does not address the recordal of licences. However, in practice, SIPO will record licences upon request as part of its administrative procedures, even though such recordal is not mandated by statute. Licence recordal is therefore an administrative practice rather than a statutory requirement.

There is no statutory time limit for recording assignments or licences. Nevertheless, delaying the recordal of an assignment may prejudice the assignee’s ability to enforce its rights against third parties. For this reason, prompt recordal is recommended as a matter of best practice.

In practice, infringement claims are handled under general civil law principles. Although there is no codified doctrine equivalent to the common law concept of laches, courts may still take undue delay into account when evaluating equitable remedies – particularly when determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate.

Trade mark and copyright infringement claims may be pursued through civil proceedings and, in certain circumstances, through criminal enforcement under the relevant statutes.

For trade marks, statutory infringement actions may be brought only by the registered proprietor. Unregistered marks are not protected through infringement proceedings, although prior use and other commercial interests may be relevant in opposition or cancellation actions.

Copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation of a qualifying work, and no registration is required to bring an infringement claim.

The legislation does not distinguish between direct, contributory, or vicarious infringement. Instead, liability is assessed based on the defendant’s participation in the unauthorised act.

Trade mark infringement occurs when a registered mark – or a confusingly similar sign – is used without authorisation in the course of trade in a way likely to mislead or deceive the public. A successful claim generally requires demonstrating:

• ownership of a valid trade mark registration;
• unauthorised use of the mark or a similar sign; and
• a likelihood of deception or confusion.

Copyright infringement involves the unauthorised reproduction, distribution, performance, communication, or other exploitation of a protected work. The claimant must show ownership of copyright, the subsistence of protectable rights, and use that interferes with one or more of those exclusive rights.

The Trade Marks Ordinance does not establish separate causes of action for dilution, cybersquatting, or tarnishment. Protection is centred on preventing deception and unauthorised commercial use.

Similarly, the Copyright Law contains no specific provisions relating to copyright management information or technological protection measures. As a result, claims are limited to unauthorised use of protected works and infringement of authors’ economic and moral rights.

In determining trade mark infringement, courts consider several key factors: the similarity between the marks, the similarity between the goods or services, the likelihood of public confusion, and the manner in which the mark is used in commerce. These considerations stem from Articles 9 and 10 of the Ordinance, which prohibit the use of marks that are deceptive or misleading.

For copyright infringement, the central issues are originality, ownership of the work, and whether the defendant has reproduced or exploited a substantial part of the protected work without authorisation. These principles are set out in the relevant legislation and are applied by the courts based on the specific facts of each case.

There are no statutory prerequisites – such as mandatory demand letters, mediation, or warning notices – required before filing a trade mark or copyright infringement lawsuit. Trade mark infringement claims do require a valid registration, but copyright claims do not.

Principles of good faith, abuse of rights, and competition law may limit overly aggressive or improper enforcement behaviour. Courts also retain discretion to determine whether enforcement actions are brought legitimately or in bad faith.

Trade mark and copyright infringement proceedings in Somalia are initiated before the competent civil courts in accordance with Article 52 of the Trade Marks Ordinance and the general civil procedure rules. Somalia does not currently operate specialised intellectual property courts.

Pre‑filing costs typically include legal consultation, evidence collection, translation, notarisation of documents, and the preparation of pleadings. While legal representation is not strictly mandatory, parties are often represented by lawyers due to procedural complexity and evidentiary requirements.

Foreign trade mark and copyright owners may bring infringement actions before Somali courts. For trade mark infringement claims, a valid Somali trade mark registration is required. In contrast, copyright infringement claims may proceed without registration, provided that the claimant can prove ownership of the work and the subsistence of copyright.

Potential defendants typically safeguard their position in infringement proceedings by filing defensive pleadings or, where appropriate, initiating validity or nullity actions. Although measures such as bonds or protective briefs are not specifically governed by IP‑focused legislation, they may still be available through general civil procedure rules at the court’s discretion.

Claims of lower economic value are heard by the ordinary civil courts, which apply general procedural rules and ensure that costs and remedies remain proportionate.

Decisions issued by the Trade Mark Office – whether granting registration or refusing an application – do not bind the civil courts in subsequent infringement proceedings. The courts maintain independent authority to determine issues of infringement, validity, and enforcement. However, administrative decisions may still be considered as persuasive background where relevant.

By contrast, copyright enforcement is handled exclusively through the courts. Because there is no copyright registration authority whose decisions carry legal effect, administrative outcomes play no role in copyright infringement litigation.

Trade mark counterfeiting refers to the fraudulent imitation or unauthorised use of a registered trade mark in a manner likely to deceive the public. This conduct is addressed under Article 53 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, which provides for criminal liability, as well as the seizure and confiscation of infringing goods, in addition to available civil remedies.

Under Article 54, customs and other competent authorities may also intervene – at the request of the trade mark owner – to prevent the importation or distribution of counterfeit goods.

Bootlegging, meaning the unauthorised commercial exploitation of copyrighted works, is addressed under the Copyright Law through both civil and criminal sanctions. Parties engaging in large‑scale unauthorised reproduction or distribution may be subject to criminal liability, depending on the circumstances and the applicable penal provisions.

Somalia’s Trade Marks Ordinance does not establish any special procedural rules specifically for trade mark or copyright litigation. Instead, infringement cases are handled under the general civil procedure rules that apply to commercial and civil disputes, supplemented by the substantive provisions of the Trade Marks Ordinance and the Copyright Law.

Somalia does not have specialised intellectual property courts or tribunals. Trade mark and copyright cases are heard by the ordinary civil courts, and decisions are made by legally trained judges, as there is no jury system. While the courts do not formally appoint technical assessors, they may consider expert evidence when technical issues arise.

Parties have no role in selecting the judge or decision-maker. Judicial assignment follows the standard court allocation process, and judgments are issued by the presiding judge or judicial panel in accordance with applicable procedural rules.

Holding a valid trade mark registration provides significant advantages in litigation. Registration serves as strong evidence of ownership and exclusive rights in relation to the goods or services covered, which simplifies establishing title and standing in infringement proceedings.

However, registration does not render a trade mark immune from challenge. Defences such as invalidity, non‑use, and prior rights remain available to alleged infringers, and courts retain the authority to assess these issues independently. Nevertheless, a registered trade mark typically shifts the focus of litigation away from proving entitlement and towards determining whether infringement has occurred and whether any defences apply.

For trade mark infringement, the alleged infringer’s use does not need to exactly match the specification of the registered mark. Infringement may be found where the mark is used on identical or similar goods and where such use is likely to mislead or confuse the public. Use on entirely unrelated goods is less likely to amount to infringement unless a clear likelihood of deception can be established.

In contrast, copyright protection does not depend on registration. There are no registration‑based evidentiary advantages comparable to those for trade marks. Instead, ownership and subsistence must be demonstrated through evidence of creation, authorship, and originality.

There is no fixed scale of costs for trade mark or copyright infringement litigation in Somalia. Expenses vary depending on several factors, including the complexity of the dispute, the amount of evidence involved, the number of hearings required, and whether interim or urgent relief is sought.

Typical costs may include legal fees, court filing fees, translation and notarisation of documents, expert evidence where necessary, and other procedural expenses. Trade mark matters involving registration challenges or counterfeiting allegations usually incur higher costs than straightforward infringement disputes.

The overall duration of proceedings and the conduct of the parties also significantly affect total litigation costs. Courts have broad discretion in awarding costs, and full recovery of legal fees is not guaranteed.

In Somalia, defences to trade mark infringement are based on the Trade Marks Ordinance No 3 of 22 January 1955 and general civil law principles. The main defences include the following.

Non-Infringement

The defendant may argue that there is no likelihood of deception or confusion because the marks or the goods are not identical or sufficiently similar.

Prior Good-Faith Use

A person who used a mark in good faith before the filing or registration of the claimant’s mark may continue that use within the limits of the earlier use (Article 21).

Invalidity of the Registered Mark

The defendant may challenge the validity of the claimant’s registration, including on grounds of lack of distinctiveness, deceptiveness, or conflict with earlier rights.

Non-Use (Lapse)

A registered mark that has not been genuinely used for three consecutive years after registration, or whose use has been interrupted for three consecutive years, is vulnerable to lapse or cancellation (Article 26), which may defeat enforcement.

Own-Name or Trade-Name Use

Honest use of a person’s own name, address, pseudonym, or trade name is permitted, provided it is not misleading (Article 22).

Geographical Name Use

Registration of a mark containing a geographical name does not prevent others from using that name in good faith to indicate true origin (Article 21).

Consent or Licence

Use of a mark with the consent of the proprietor, including under a licence, is a defence to infringement (Articles 23 and 25).

General Civil Law Limitations

Courts may apply principles such as good faith and abuse of rights to limit enforcement, although doctrines such as fair use, parody, laches, estoppel, or acquiescence are not expressly codified.

Some defences, such as prior use or consent, may operate as a complete bar to liability, while others may limit remedies or enforcement.

The Copyright Law No 66 of 7 September 1977 does not recognise a general doctrine of “fair use” or “fair dealing”. Instead, it provides a closed list of specific statutory exceptions and permitted uses, set out primarily in Articles 33 to 35. These provisions allow the use of copyrighted works without the author’s consent only in narrowly defined circumstances, such as certain private uses, educational and scientific activities, judicial and governmental purposes, and limited informational uses.

Any permitted use must fall strictly within these statutory exceptions and comply with the conditions prescribed by law. These conditions include requirements of proportionality, attribution where applicable, and ensuring that the use does not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author (Articles 33–35).

The Copyright Law does not explicitly recognise parody or satire as independent exceptions. There is no statutory definition of parody or satire, and they do not function as standalone defences. Any reliance on parody or satire must therefore fit within one of the existing statutory exceptions, which are interpreted narrowly.

Likewise, the law does not provide a specific defence based on freedom of expression or the right to information. Although courts may consider the context and purpose of the use when assessing infringement or remedies, such considerations do not amount to independent or codified defences under the statute.

The Trade Marks Ordinance No 3 of 22 January 1955 does not expressly set out a modern exhaustion or “first sale” doctrine. Instead, it addresses the issue indirectly by focusing on whether the use of a mark is misleading or deceptive. In practice, when goods are genuine and have been placed on the market by, or with the consent of, the trade mark owner, their resale is generally less likely to constitute infringement, so long as the use of the mark is not misleading. However, an owner may still have grounds for enforcement if deception can be established. Because the Ordinance does not define the territorial scope or conditions of exhaustion, these matters are determined on a case‑by‑case basis.

Similarly, the Copyright Law No 66 of 7 September 1977 does not establish a general exhaustion or “first sale” doctrine. The statute instead focuses on specific permitted uses and limitations, particularly in Articles 33 to 35, rather than adopting a broad rule that prevents copyright owners from controlling downstream resale of copies. The law also does not address exhaustion in relation to digital content, and there is no settled statutory or judicial guidance on how exhaustion principles should apply to digital works.

Trade mark and copyright owners may seek injunctive relief from the competent courts to restrain actual or threatened infringement. Such injunctions are issued under the courts’ general civil jurisdiction, together with the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Ordinance and the Copyright Law.

The courts have broad discretion when granting injunctive relief. Under the Civil Procedure Law, temporary injunctions may be issued in certain circumstances. These measures are typically directed at stopping infringing acts or preventing the continuation of unlawful conduct.

There is no codified multi‑factor test for granting interim or preliminary injunctions in intellectual property matters. In practice, courts generally consider whether the claimant has demonstrated a plausible right, whether there is urgency, and whether the relief sought is proportionate.

Defendants may challenge injunctive relief by disputing infringement or validity, questioning the urgency of the request, or relying on delay or other equitable considerations.

Monetary remedies are available for both trade mark and copyright infringement, and their award lies within the discretion of the court. Civil remedies are primarily compensatory and are intended to address the loss suffered as a result of the infringing conduct.

In matters involving fraudulent imitation or counterfeiting, the Trade Marks Ordinance also provides for criminal sanctions and confiscation measures imposed by the competent authorities, in addition to any civil consequences. Similarly, the Copyright Law provides for civil compensation as well as criminal liability for the unauthorised exploitation of protected works.

There are no specific statutory rules providing for enhanced damages, statutory damages, or predetermined monetary awards in intellectual property infringement cases. For trade marks, registration establishes the legal basis and standing to enforce exclusive rights and provides a strong foundation for seeking monetary relief. Damages are then assessed by the court on a compensatory basis, with reference to proven loss, rather than any fixed statutory categories. By contrast, copyright protection does not depend on registration for remedies to be available.

Responsibility for litigation costs, including court fees and legal expenses, is governed by the general civil procedure rules. Courts have discretion to decide whether one party should bear all or part of the costs associated with the proceedings. Recovery of attorneys’ fees is not automatic, and the amount awarded may not reflect the full costs actually incurred. Cost awards are discretionary and are assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case.

There is no statutory regime specific to intellectual‑property matters that governs the granting of ex parte relief. Under general civil‑procedure principles, interim measures may be issued without prior notice only in exceptional circumstances. Such relief is granted cautiously, and courts typically require that the defendant be given an opportunity to be heard at a later stage. The availability and scope of ex parte relief therefore depend on the facts of the case and remain subject to the court’s discretion.

The Trade Marks Ordinance allows the competent authorities to seize and confiscate counterfeit goods in cases involving fraudulent imitation. These enforcement measures operate independently and do not amount to a full customs recordal system for intellectual property.

Somalia maintains a general customs administration framework under its customs laws and regulations; however, its IP legislation does not establish a detailed border‑control regime specifically for trade marks or copyrights. In practice, action against counterfeit imports typically relies on court orders or co-operation between rights holders and enforcement authorities.

Parallel imports are not expressly regulated under Somali law and are generally assessed using broader principles of infringement, deception, or unfair competition.

Appeals in trade mark and copyright infringement cases follow the standard civil appeals process. There is no specialised appellate body dedicated to intellectual property matters. Instead, infringement decisions issued by trial courts are reviewed by the ordinary appellate courts within the judicial hierarchy.

Appeals may address both questions of law and, where permitted by procedural rules, questions of fact. The scope of review depends on the applicable standards governing appellate scrutiny.

Copyright infringement decisions follow the same appellate structure as trade mark cases. As with trade marks, there is no separate appellate authority for copyright matters; appeals proceed through the general court system in accordance with established civil appeal procedures.

The right to appeal arises once the trial court issues its final decision. The deadline for filing an appeal is determined by the general civil procedure rules, which set out the procedural time limits for lodging appeals.

There is no statutory period within which an appellate court must reach its decision. The duration of an appeal varies depending on factors such as the complexity of the case, the court’s workload, and the nature of the issues raised. In practice, appellate proceedings often take several months or longer to conclude.

Somalia’s trade mark and copyright framework is based on longstanding legislation, most notably the Trade Marks Ordinance of 1955 and the Copyright Law of 1977. These laws continue to form the foundation of intellectual property protection in the country. As the legal and institutional landscape evolves, emerging issues are typically addressed through existing legal principles, giving courts and practitioners the flexibility to respond to new forms of commercial and creative activity.

Regarding artificial intelligence, Somalia currently has no specific statutory provisions or judicial guidance on the ownership of AI‑generated outputs or the use of copyrighted works in AI training. The Copyright Law is centred on the concepts of human authorship and originality, which therefore serve as the basis for analysing questions related to automated or AI‑assisted content. In practice, matters involving authorship, ownership, or potential infringement arising from AI‑generated material would be evaluated under general copyright principles until further legislative or judicial clarification is provided.

To date, there have been no reported landmark decisions or publicly known pending cases in Somalia addressing artificial intelligence in relation to trade mark or copyright law. As Somali courts confront these novel issues in the future, they retain the ability to draw on comparative reasoning and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions where appropriate, while applying domestic legal principles to local circumstances.

In practice, issues of online infringement in Somalia are handled under the general principles of intellectual property infringement, focusing on unauthorised use, deception, and resulting harm. There are no statutory obligations requiring online platforms or service providers to remove content upon receiving takedown notices, nor is there any formal system that makes trade mark or copyright registration a prerequisite for requesting content removal.

Where online platforms operate within, or specifically target, Somalia, enforcement typically relies on contractual arrangements, platform‑specific policies, or court orders obtained through the standard judicial process. As a result, internet‑related infringement is treated as an extension of conventional infringement analysis rather than a distinct regulatory category.