In October 2026, two decisions handed down in Casablanca were a reminder that a trademark is an asset that has to be defended. In the first, the commercial court of appeal annulled a refusal of registration issued by OMPIC. In the second, the commercial court found two companies liable for counterfeiting. For a Moroccan business, whether it is filing a trademark or seeing it copied, these cases are a good occasion to review the remedies available under Law 17-97 on industrial property.
Two cases from October 2026
According to Médias24 (14 October 2026), the Casablanca commercial court of appeal annulled a decision of OMPIC (the Moroccan industrial and commercial property office) refusing to register the trademark of Anthropic, a US artificial intelligence company. An opposition had been filed by a leading Moroccan operator. The ruling shows that the office's decision is not the final word: it can be reviewed by the courts.
The next day, the same outlet reported that the Casablanca commercial court, at first instance, had found Finetti and Marochoc International liable for counterfeiting, in an action brought by Borrás, the maker of Maruja chocolate bars. As a first-instance judgment, it remains open to challenge under the ordinary rules.
File early, and search before filing
In Morocco, trademark protection comes through registration with OMPIC. Using a name for years without filing it invites unpleasant surprises: a third party may file it first, and your position then becomes much harder to defend. Filing should therefore happen as soon as the name is settled, before the commercial launch, the website or the printing of packaging.
Before any filing, a clearance search identifies identical or similar marks already registered for similar goods or services. It reduces the risk of opposition and avoids investing in a name that cannot be used freely. It also helps measure your room for manoeuvre in a dispute: a similar sign used for very different products does not carry the same risk as a near-identical sign in the same market.
Oppositions and refusals: OMPIC's decision can be challenged
The owner of an earlier mark may oppose a new filing it considers too close to its own. That is what happened in the case decided on appeal in October 2026. For the applicant, it is essential to follow the file, answer the opponent's arguments and keep evidence showing the difference between the signs or the activities.
If OMPIC refuses registration, the decision can be challenged before the commercial court of appeal, as this case illustrates. Time limits for challenges are strict: check them as soon as the decision is received and prepare precise arguments. Conversely, the owner of an earlier mark should monitor new filings so as to oppose in time.
Facing a copy: gather evidence, then act
Infringement of a registered trademark is pursued before the commercial court. Before acting, solid evidence is needed: purchases of the infringing products with invoices, photographs, dated screenshots, an official statement of findings. The better documented the file, the more credible the claim for an injunction and damages. Date each item and keep the originals.
A formal notice is sometimes enough to stop the use. When it is ignored, court action makes it possible to seek a halt to sales and compensation for the loss. The choice between these routes depends on the scale of the copying, the solvency of the infringer and the commercial urgency.
Our advice
These two cases show that a trademark is not a mere administrative formality: it is a right that is built and defended over time. Both the OMPIC refusal overturned on appeal and the first-instance counterfeiting judgment show that courts look concretely at the signs and uses involved. A few habits limit the risks:
- file the trademark with OMPIC as soon as the name is chosen, before the commercial launch;
- cover the goods and services actually targeted, including planned extensions;
- monitor new filings so that you can oppose them;
- keep evidence of use of the mark (invoices, advertising, packaging);
- if refused, promptly assess a challenge before the commercial court of appeal.
Sources
- Médias24, 14 October 2026: « Exclusif : Anthropic fait sauter le veto de l'OMPIC sur sa marque »
- Médias24, 15 October 2026: « Maruja : Finetti et Marochoc International condamnées pour contrefaçon »
Maître Mouad Lahfaia
Lawyer at the Rabat Bar
This article reflects the author's views as at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and is no substitute for an analysis of your particular situation.