If you used a brand in Saudi Arabia before another party registered it, and you never registered it yourself, you can ask the commercial court to cancel their registration (revocation for prior use under art. 7(2) of the GCC Trademark Law), provided you act within five years of that registration.
Prior-use revocation lets the earlier user of a brand cancel a later registration of that same brand by someone else. The single fact that decides whether this is your remedy is simple: you used the brand in Saudi Arabia first, and you never registered it. If you did hold a Saudi registration, your route would be cancellation instead. The rest of this article is how that plays out in real Saudi rulings.
Prior-use revocation lets the earlier user of a brand cancel a later registration of that same brand by someone else. The rule sits in art. 7(2) of the GCC Trademark Law (the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf Trademark Law, Royal Decree M/51 of 26/07/1435H): a person who used a mark before the party in whose name it was registered may ask the competent court to cancel that registration within five years of the registration date, unless the earlier user expressly or impliedly consented to the registrant's use.
The logic is that registration records a right, it does not create one out of nothing. Saudi law treats good-faith registration as ownership, but art. 7(1) only makes that ownership unchallengeable once the registration has been paired with five years of use and no dispute. Inside that five-year window, an earlier user can still displace the registrant. This is a means-based remedy: you are asking the court to weigh evidence of who used the brand first, not buying a guaranteed result.
Prior-use revocation is the remedy for the earlier user who never registered the mark in Saudi Arabia. A registration the brand holds in another country does not change this, because trademark rights are territorial.
The dividing line is one fact: do you already hold a Saudi registration for the brand? If you registered the mark in Saudi Arabia, your priority is fixed on the public record, and the route to remove a conflicting mark is cancellation (arts. 22 to 26), because your registration already proves your earlier right. If you never registered it in Saudi Arabia, and rely only on having used the brand first, the route is prior-use revocation (art. 7(2)). Choose the wrong action and the claim can fail on that ground alone, before the court ever weighs your evidence.
| Cancellation | Revocation for prior use | |
|---|---|---|
| Your starting point | You already hold a Saudi registration for the brand | You used the brand first but never registered it in Saudi Arabia |
| Statutory basis | arts. 22 to 26 | art. 7(2) |
| What proves your priority | Your existing Saudi registration | Documentary evidence of earlier use |
| Deadline | Per the ground (for example, five years of non-use under art. 24) | Five years from the challenged registration |
Saudi courts characterise the action by its substance, not by the label on your pleading, and that works against a claimant who chooses the wrong one. It is not a safety net: it does not let you file loosely and rely on the court to put the claim right. When a claimant who held no Saudi registration pleaded cancellation while resting purely on earlier use, the court rejected the cancellation framing and treated the matter as a prior-use revocation. In another matter the court applied the five-year clock from the registration date and dismissed a claim that, recast as the prior-use revocation it really was, had been filed too late. Filing the correct action from the start is what keeps a case from being rejected on that ground alone.
Two things have to hold: standing and earlier use. For standing, you need a direct, current interest in cancelling the mark, which the brand's actual user or owner will normally have. For the merits, you prove that your use of the brand in Saudi Arabia predates the challenged registration. Ownership can sit with an individual even where a company later trades under the mark, so long as the evidence shows that individual created and used it. In one matter the court upheld individual ownership on an email trail, design payments from a personal account, and the timeline, against an argument that a company was the true owner.
Dated, documentary proof wins these cases. Saudi courts look for records that fix your use of the brand to a date earlier than the registration, and they weigh that against whatever the registrant can show for their own first use. Where the registrant produces nothing on earlier use, the claimant's dated evidence tends to carry the point.
| Evidence | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| A dated brand-launch or rebrand campaign | Public use of the mark on a fixed date, often through social media posts that carry their own timestamps |
| Distribution and supply contracts | Commercial use of the brand on goods in the Saudi market before the registration |
| Payment receipts to a designer | That you commissioned and owned the mark, and when |
| Email correspondence with a designer or supplier | The development timeline of the mark, step by step |
| Earlier invoices, packaging, and marketing | A continuous record of the brand in trade |
In one revocation, the claimant had relaunched its brand identity through a dated public campaign across social platforms, all of it predating the certificate it was challenging, while the registrant offered nothing to show earlier use of its own. The court cancelled the registration. In another, distribution contracts placing the claimant's branded product in the Saudi market, read together with the registrant's own later supply arrangement for the identical product, showed both earlier use and bad faith, and the mark was cancelled. The pattern is consistent: the side that documents an earlier, datable use prevails, and an unsupported assertion of first use does not.
A registration abroad, on its own, does not prove prior use inside Saudi Arabia, and it will not carry a revocation claim by itself. Trademark rights are territorial. A registration in the country of origin shows that another registry accepted the mark, not that the brand was used in the Saudi market before the challenged registration. We have seen a claimant rely on a home-country registration while the registrant had both used the brand in Saudi Arabia since several years earlier and held a Saudi registration. With no proof of earlier Saudi use, the claim did not succeed, and the court noted that protection for a foreign registration stays within the countries where it is registered unless the mark qualifies as well-known.
A foreign registration can support the wider story, as evidence of reputation or of when the brand first appeared, but it is a supporting fact, not a substitute for Saudi use. The same caution applies to leaning on a prior Saudi registration: art. 7(2) is about earlier use, so resting on registrations rather than use can miss the provision altogether.
The court compares the marks for points of similarity, not points of difference, starting from the position that marks are presumed to differ. Two material elements carry the comparison: the visual element (the shape, colours, and device) and the phonetic element (how the marks sound when spoken, the point at which a listener confuses one for the other). A clear overlap in either can establish similarity.
Because reasonable people, including judges, differ on what looks or sounds alike, the test is the impression on the relevant public for those goods or services, not the judge's own ear. In one matter the registrant did not dispute the claimant's earlier use and argued only that the marks were not similar. The court found the dominant word element shared and the overall form close enough to mislead an ordinary consumer, and held that added wording at the foot of the later mark did not change the overall impression. The mark was struck.
You have five years from the date of the challenged registration to bring a prior-use revocation. Miss it and the claim is highly likely to be dismissed as inadmissible, whatever its merits, because once a registration has run five years paired with use and no dispute, art. 7(1) settles ownership in the registrant. The window is the single most important fact in many of these cases.
Where a claimant filed what it called a cancellation but in substance had only prior use, the court treated it as a prior-use revocation, applied the five-year clock from the registration date, and dismissed it as out of time. If your brand is sitting against a registration approaching its fifth anniversary, the practical question is not whether your evidence is strong but whether there is still time to file.
On a final judgment of revocation, SAIP strikes the challenged mark from the register. What revocation does not do is hand you the registration automatically or unconditionally. We have seen a prior user ask the court both to strike the rival mark and to clear the way for its own unrestricted registration. The court granted the cancellation on prior-use grounds but declined the second request, holding that striking-out for a registration breach and revocation for earlier use are different remedies and the claimant had pleaded the wrong one for that further relief. Plan the action around the remedy you actually need.
What we commit to is the professional skill and care we bring to your matter, not a guaranteed result.
Cancelling a later registration because you used the brand in Saudi Arabia first and never registered it (art. 7(2)).
Striking a registration that breached the Law, for example a mark confusingly similar to an earlier registered one (arts. 22 to 26).
The consumers of the goods or services in question, whose impression decides whether two marks are confusingly similar.
Closeness in how two marks sound when spoken, to the point a listener confuses one for the other.
Registering a mark while aware of another party's earlier use of the same brand.
See the trademark revocation service and check the deadline under art. 7(2) against your registration date.