Depuis l’introduction de la procédure d’opposition sous la Loi 17-97 relative à la protection de la propriété industrielle, telle que modifiée par la Loi 23-13, OMPIC a progressivement développé sa propre jurisprudence en matière de conflits de marques, notamment à travers les OMPIC opposition decisions. Une jurisprudence que peu de praticiens ont pu observer de façon systématique, en raison du manque de publication organisée des décisions.
HNH IP Law manages a significant volume of oppositions on behalf of major national and international brands. This corpus of 100 decisions, drawn from our practice over several years, offers a rare analytical window into the Office’s actual reasoning. Here is what it reveals.
1. OMPIC Rules with Rigor: Similarity Must Be Proven, Not Merely Alleged
The first fundamental lesson: OMPIC does not uphold an opposition because it is filed by a major brand. It upholds an opposition because it is well-constructed.
Among the 100 decisions analyzed, the success rate of the oppositions we have handled significantly exceeds the average observed in general practice. This is not a matter of chance. It reflects a methodology: every opposition is preceded by an in-depth comparative analysis of the signs, the goods and services, and the supporting evidence, before it is even filed.
The decisions commented below are concrete proof of this.
2. The Comparison Triptych: Visual, Phonetic, Conceptual
OMPIC systematically structures its reasoning around three axes of comparison. Our corpus allows us to measure their relative weight with precision.
The visual criterion is the most frequently applied, appearing in 63% of the decisions analyzed. The phonetic criterion follows closely, present in 57% of cases. The conceptual criterion, however, is only applied in a determinative way in 10% of decisions, almost exclusively in combination with the other two.
For the practitioner, this means one concrete thing: a solid opposition argument must primarily demonstrate visual and phonetic similarity. The conceptual argument serves as reinforcement, rarely as a standalone basis.
Our corpus also reveals that OMPIC places particular importance on the opening and closing elements of signs. Two marks may share a common root and yet be distinguished if their endings create a sufficiently different sound or appearance. Conversely, a minor difference in the middle of a word is rarely sufficient to exclude a likelihood of confusion.
3. Decision Spotlight: L’Oréal v. LA BELLA VIVA — When Latin Does Not Fool the Consumer
Opposition No. 24190, handled on behalf of L’Oréal, perfectly illustrates the sophistication that OMPIC’s reasoning can reach when arguments are well-constructed.
The applicant had filed the mark LA BELLA VIVA in class 3 for cosmetic products. The earlier mark invoked was LA VIE EST BELLE, one of the most recognized perfumes in the world. At first reading, the two signs appear different: one is in French, the other in Latin. This is precisely the argument the applicant attempted to exploit.
OMPIC was not misled. In its decision No. 17043/2025 of December 10, 2025, the Office held that the two signs share not only their opening element “LA” but above all an identical intellectual concept: “la bella viva” in Latin translates directly to “la vie est belle” in French. On the phonetic level, the syllables VI, BEL and BELLA create a similar auditory resonance that is immediately perceptible.
Three criteria upheld simultaneously, the notoriety of LA VIE EST BELLE confirmed on the basis of documented evidence including the Julia Roberts campaign, identical goods in class 3: the opposition was upheld in its entirety.
Key lesson: a mark filed in another language does not automatically create sufficient distance if the concept remains identical and if consumers can make the connection.
4. Decision Spotlight: YSL v. LOVE YOU LOTS — Graphic Structure as a Vector of Confusion
Opposition No. 22309, handled on behalf of Yves Saint Laurent Parfums, raises a question rarely addressed in Moroccan practice: can confusion arise from a similar graphic structure, even when the verbal elements are different?
The applicant had filed LOVE YOU LOTS in class 3, accompanied by a monogram composed of intertwined letters V, O and L. The YSL mark, registered under No. 425485 designating Morocco since 1976, is built on an iconic monogram of stylized intertwined uppercase letters Y, S and L.
The applicant contested the initial decision, arguing that the letters and verbal elements were distinct. OMPIC confirmed its ruling in decision No. 15286/2025 of May 29, 2025: what creates confusion is not only the identity of the letters, but the structure of the sign. A consumer exposed to a monogram of stylized and intertwined uppercase letters, in the cosmetics and fragrance sector, will naturally associate that sign with the YSL universe. The notoriety of the earlier mark, established through digital and media evidence, amplified this risk of association.
Key lesson: in sectors with strong visual identity such as luxury and cosmetics, the graphic structure of a sign is a comparison criterion in its own right.
5. Decision Spotlight: SCORPIUS v. SPASMYL — The Art of Reversing an Initial Decision
This case deserves particular attention for a procedural reason: the opposition had initially been rejected. It was our contestation, filed within the 15-day deadline, that reversed the decision.
SCORPIUS, owner of the mark METEOSPASMYL in class 5, opposed the filing of SPASMYL by SYNTHEMEDIC for identical pharmaceutical products. The initial decision had excluded the likelihood of confusion on the grounds that the prefix METEO created a sufficient difference.
Our contestation demonstrated the opposite: SPASMYL constitutes the entirety of the contested sign and appears at the core of METEOSPASMYL. It is this element, not the prefix, that dominates the consumer’s perception, particularly in a medical context where marks are frequently abbreviated.
The final decision No. 15459/2025 upheld our arguments in their entirety: predominant visual and phonetic similarities, likelihood of confusion established, opposition justified.
Key lesson: an initial unfavorable OMPIC decision is not the end. The contestation procedure, when well-argued, is an effective tool.
6. Sector Analysis: Class 3 Leads, Pharma Under Close Watch
The sector analysis of our corpus reveals a marked concentration of oppositions in three product classes.
Class 3 (cosmetics, perfumery, toiletry preparations) is the most represented, accounting for nearly one third of the cases analyzed. This is not surprising: the Moroccan cosmetics market is experiencing sustained growth, attracting an increasing number of local and international applicants, sometimes without any serious prior availability search. This is also the sector where major international brands are most active in monitoring and opposition.
Class 5 (pharmaceutical products) represents a particularly sensitive area: confusion between two drug names can have consequences that go well beyond the legal framework. OMPIC is aware of this, and our corpus shows that the Office exercises heightened vigilance in this sector, accepting a likelihood of confusion even when the signs share only a partial sequence.
Classes 9, 16, 25 and 35 complete the picture, with a notable increase in oppositions in class 35 (commercial services), reflecting the growing service-sector economy in Morocco and the multiplication of retail brands and distribution platforms.
7. National Marks vs. Madrid Designations: Which Holds Up Better?
Our corpus allows us to distinguish two profiles of contested applications: direct national filings at OMPIC, and international designations through the Madrid system.
Madrid designations account for approximately 30% of the contested applications in our sample. Contrary to what one might expect, they are not better defended than national filings. In several cases, the holder of a Madrid designation submitted no observations in response to the opposition, leaving OMPIC to rule solely on the basis of the opponent’s arguments.
This can be partly explained by a phenomenon well known to practitioners: Madrid designations are often filed automatically across a large number of countries, without any real IP strategy for each territory. When an opposition is filed in Morocco, the foreign holder does not always have a reactive local counsel, and the two-month response deadline can be fatal.
For opponents, this represents an opportunity: an undefended Madrid designation is an opposition with minimal resistance.
8. Processing Time: 8 Months, the Figure to Remember
One of the most frequent questions from our clients is simple: how long does it take to obtain a decision?
Our corpus provides a precise answer. Based on the cases where we have both dates, the average processing time is 8 months between the publication of the contested application and the date of the decision. This figure is remarkably stable: the vast majority of first-instance decisions are rendered between 7 and 9 months after publication.
Cases that have been subject to a contestation add an average of 2 to 3 additional months. In total, a complete opposition procedure including a contestation phase is generally resolved within 10 to 11 months before OMPIC. This is a valuable piece of information for trademark portfolio management: an opposition filed today will result in a decision within less than a year, which is short by IP procedure standards.
9. Contestation Rate: When Perseverance Pays Off
In our corpus, one third of cases gave rise to a contestation procedure. This high figure reflects the strategic importance of this procedural phase, which is too often overlooked.
The most significant result is the reversal rate: among the contestations filed by our firm on behalf of opponents, the majority resulted in a confirmation or strengthening of the initially favorable position. The SCORPIUS v. SPASMYL case is the most striking illustration: an initial rejection decision entirely reversed through targeted argumentation focused on the dominant element of the sign.
A contestation is not a comfort appeal. It is a strategic tool in its own right, requiring a precise analysis of the grounds of the initial decision and a new line of argument, not merely a reformulation of arguments already presented.
10. Classic Mistakes by Applicants: What Our Corpus Reveals
The analysis of arguments systematically dismissed by OMPIC draws a clear picture of the most common mistakes.
The first mistake is believing that a partial difference is sufficient to exclude confusion. Adding a prefix, changing an ending, or transposing a term into another language does not automatically create sufficient distance if the dominant element remains identical or very similar.
The second mistake is invoking notoriety without documenting it seriously. Several opponents have seen their notoriety argument dismissed for lack of evidence anchored in the Moroccan market. A foreign registration certificate, however prestigious, is not enough.
The third mistake is failing to respond to an opposition. In several cases in our corpus, the applicant submitted no observations, leaving OMPIC to rule solely on the opponent’s arguments. This is a major strategic error, particularly common among holders of Madrid designations without local counsel.
The fourth mistake is failing to contest an unfavorable initial decision. The 15-day window is short, but it is precious.
11. Notoriety Before OMPIC: What the Office Actually Expects
Our corpus reveals an important lesson on the proof of notoriety. In cases where we invoked notoriety with a carefully constructed evidence file, OMPIC upheld it in the vast majority of instances.
What the Office accepts: documented presence in the Moroccan market, local media coverage, verifiable online presence, registration history, advertising campaigns targeting the Moroccan consumer.
What it systematically rejects: mere registration certificates, extracts from foreign websites with no Moroccan connection, unilateral declarations.
Notoriety is not presumed in Morocco, even for the most internationally recognized brands. It is built case by case, proof by proof.
12. The OMPIC Opposition Procedure: A Framework Overview
The opposition is an administrative procedure governed by Law 17-97 on the protection of industrial property, as amended by Law 23-13. It allows any holder of an earlier mark to oppose the registration of a new application published in the official OMPIC gazette, within a two-month period from the date of publication.
The opposition is examined by an internal OMPIC commission, which rules on the basis of the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties. The Office’s reasoning invariably follows three steps: comparison of the designated goods and services, comparison of the signs at issue, and where applicable, assessment of the notoriety invoked by the opponent.
The comparison of signs applies the classic triptych: visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity, assessed globally from the perspective of the average consumer. OMPIC rules on the existence or otherwise of a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the relevant public, taking into account the dominant and distinctive elements of each sign.
The decision rendered may be contested within 15 days of notification, opening a second phase of examination before the same commission on the basis of new arguments. If the contestation is dismissed, the holder retains the option of judicial proceedings to assert their rights.
Mastering this procedure means anticipating each step of the Office’s reasoning before even filing the opposition. This is what we do systematically at HNH IP Law.
13. Ten Lessons to Secure Your Trademark in Morocco
For legal directors, IP managers and trademark counsel
- Monitor OMPIC publications systematically: the two-month opposition deadline cannot be extended.
- Do not file an opposition without a prior similarity analysis: a rejection weakens your position and generates unnecessary costs.
- Build your notoriety file before you need it: gather evidence of use in the Moroccan market on an ongoing basis, not in a rush during proceedings.
- Always respond to an opposition filed against your mark, even if you believe you are in the right: silence is interpreted as an absence of arguments.
- Prioritize visual and phonetic arguments: these are the criteria OMPIC applies first.
- Do not underestimate a Madrid designation: it enjoys the same protection as a national filing and can be opposed with equal force.
- Contest an unfavorable decision within 15 days: this is an underused procedural right that can reverse an initial ruling.
- Identify the dominant element of your mark and protect it: this is what OMPIC will examine first in any comparison.
- Anticipate potential conflicts before filing: a thorough availability search costs infinitely less than a lost opposition procedure.
- Work with counsel specialized in Moroccan trademark law: knowledge of OMPIC case law is a decisive advantage that only local practice can provide.
Conclusion
The analysis of this corpus of 100 decisions confirms what our daily practice teaches us: the OMPIC opposition procedure is a powerful tool for trademark protection, provided it is handled with method. The Office rules with consistency, according to criteria that are predictable for those who know its case law.
It is precisely this in-depth knowledge of the Office, built over years of practice and hundreds of cases handled, that constitutes the added value of specialized counsel.
By Hicham Chorfi, Industrial Property Counsel, HNH IP LAW
