Court rulings in Kazakhstan demonstrate an inconsistent and, at times, unpredictable approach to trademark disputes. It appears that even highly limited use of a brand name can suffice to maintain broad legal protection.

This trend is vividly illustrated by a recent case filed by ALIBABA INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED (a subsidiary of the renowned Alibaba Group). The court of first instance rendered its decision in August 2025, and the appellate court upheld it in December. The central question of the case: can minimal use of a trademark for a single service “freeze” an entire category (class) of services for the owner?

Although the court formally relied on the law, its logic suggests an overly flexible interpretation of the concept of “use.” In effect, the court extended rules designed for ordinary goods to the service sector.

The conflict centered on a trademark registered in Kazakhstan under two classes:

• Class 35: Business services and advertising.

• Class 43: Restaurant services.

The trademark owner was a local company, ARQA ASTYQ LTD, which indeed operates a restaurant (meaning it uses the mark in Class 43, a fact that was not disputed). ALIBABA petitioned the court to cancel the registration for Class 35 (advertising and business). They argued that this registration hindered the protection of their own brand, ALIBABA, and that the defendant was actually engaged only in the restaurant business, not the advertising business.

In response, the restaurant owner submitted advertising contracts and promotional materials for their establishment as evidence that they “operate” within Class 35. The court accepted these arguments, stating: if a mark is used for at least one service within a class, protection is maintained for the entire class.

This ruling raises serious questions about how the law functions in practice.

In Kazakhstan’s “Law on Trademarks” (Article 19), “goods” are explicitly mentioned in the context of partial trademark cancellation. However, this case concerned “services” under Class 35. The courts failed to explain exactly how the provision regarding goods extends to services. Instead of a deep analysis, they simply decided: if there is any use within a class, the entire class remains with the owner.

This has significant practical implications. Typically, if a brand is registered for “shoes, clothing, and hats” but only sells shoes, the registration for hats can be cancelled. However, the approach of the Kazakhstani courts turns this into an “all or nothing” system: minimal activity allows an owner to retain a vast scope of rights that they do not actually exercise.

It seems that Kazakhstani courts are prepared to consider almost anything as “use”: advertising brochures, internal contracts, or business documentation. But there is a critical nuance here. If a restaurant advertises itself (printing menus, signage), this does not mean it provides advertising services to third parties. By accepting such evidence, the courts are effectively lowering the bar to a minimum. As experts note, current practice in Kazakhstan suggests that even “symbolic” use is sufficient to hold onto a trademark for years.

This case demonstrates that in Kazakhstan, even secondary use of a name may be enough for full brand protection across an entire class. It indicates that courts are currently avoiding complex legal clarifications, equating services to goods without proper substantiation. Without clear guidance, such an approach risks turning the courts into a tool for “patent trolls” or companies that simply wish to “stake a claim” to names without engaging in real activity in those fields.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.