Judicial practice on anti-counterfeiting and customs enforcement in Uzbekistan under the Law on Investments and Investment Activities (2019) — commentary

Foreign brand owners and their distributors have encountered a markedly changed enforcement landscape in Uzbekistan since the Law on Investments and Investment Activities (2019) entered into force. For in-house counsel managing regional distribution or licensing arrangements that extend into Central Asia, the intersection of that statute's investor-protection guarantees with the country's customs and anti-counterfeiting enforcement mechanisms represents a practically significant area — one where early-stage legal positioning can determine whether an infringement is stopped at the border or resolved only after prolonged civil proceedings.

Uzbekistan's reform of its investment framework, consolidated in the 2019 Investment Law, was accompanied by a broader modernisation of the country's intellectual property infrastructure. The reforms addressed several structural deficiencies that had long frustrated foreign brand owners: limited coordination between the customs authority and the IP registry, absence of a reliable ex officio detention mechanism at the border, and uncertainty over the standing of foreign rights holders in domestic enforcement proceedings.

The 2019 Investment Law introduced statutory guarantees relevant to intellectual property protection. Foreign investors were accorded treatment not less favourable than that extended to domestic investors in the protection of their property rights, a principle courts and enforcement bodies have since applied — with varying consistency — to trademark and copyright infringement matters. The statute also reinforced the primacy of Uzbekistan's international treaty obligations, which are material given the country's participation in the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, and the TRIPS Agreement through its World Trade Organisation membership.

Within this framework, a series of enforcement matters have come before Uzbekistan's economic courts and the customs administration, addressing questions that recur across the region: whether a foreign rights holder may directly petition the customs authority for a detention order without a local representative; how courts weigh the commercial scale of infringement when assessing civil damages; and whether the investor-protection standards in the 2019 Investment Law alter the threshold for administrative penalties against distributors of counterfeit goods.

Judicial and administrative practice in Uzbekistan since 2020 has coalesced around several identifiable positions, though it would be premature to describe a fully settled body of doctrine. The following reflects the prevailing approach as understood from enforcement patterns reported in this jurisdiction.

On the threshold question of rights-holder standing, courts have generally recognised the capacity of foreign rights holders — including those holding registrations through the Madrid Protocol route — to initiate both civil infringement proceedings and border-detention procedures without requiring the appointment of a locally incorporated entity as the formal claimant. This position is consistent with the 2019 Investment Law's non-discrimination guarantee and represents a material improvement over administrative practice that preceded the reforms.

On customs enforcement, the Uzbekistan State Customs Committee has adopted operational procedures that, in standard cases, permit the detention of suspected counterfeit goods at the point of entry upon application by a recorded rights holder. The practical threshold for detention — assessed by customs officials on the basis of external characteristics and the rights holder's filed product specifications — has been applied with reasonable consistency at the main commercial crossing points. However, practice at secondary border posts has been less uniform, and rights holders who rely solely on customs-layer enforcement without maintaining active civil proceedings have reported instances where detained shipments were released following payment of an administrative fine by the importer, without destruction of the goods.

"The 2019 Investment Law's non-discrimination standard has given foreign brand owners a clearer statutory basis for customs-tier enforcement in Uzbekistan — but gap-filling at secondary crossings and the interaction with presidential investment decrees remain areas where practice is still developing." — Nodira Yusupova, Contributing Regional Analyst — Uzbekistan, Vetrov & Partners

On civil damages, economic courts have moved toward a more structured assessment of harm. Earlier practice was criticised for awarding nominal damages that bore little relationship to the commercial volume of infringing goods. More recent matters have reflected a willingness to consider lost-licence-revenue methodologies and, in matters involving systematic infringement by a distributor network, to aggregate harm across distribution tiers. The 2019 Investment Law's affirmation of full compensation as the applicable standard has been cited in judgments, though courts have differed on the evidentiary burden placed on the foreign rights holder to establish the quantum.

A further area of emerging significance concerns the interaction between the 2019 Investment Law and Uzbekistan's presidential investment decrees — instruments by which specific investors or sectors receive enhanced or modified regulatory treatment. Several enforcement matters have raised the question of whether a foreign investor holding rights under a presidential decree retains the enhanced investor protections of the decree when pursuing anti-counterfeiting claims, or whether those claims are governed solely by the general IP enforcement framework. The prevailing interpretation, as reported in practice, is that the decree-specific protections apply to the investor's core business operations and assets, while IP enforcement is governed by the general framework augmented by the 2019 Investment Law's treaty-primacy clause. This interpretation has not yet been tested at the highest judicial level, however, and counsel should treat it with appropriate caution.

For foreign companies operating distribution arrangements in Uzbekistan, the interaction between customs enforcement at the border and civil proceedings in the economic courts requires coordination. Customs detention is an interim tool; without a parallel civil claim or an administrative penalty proceeding that results in destruction, goods may return to circulation. Practitioners familiar with the jurisdiction recommend maintaining a live civil claim as a structural backstop to border-level enforcement.

[CTA: If your company holds trademark or distribution rights extending into Uzbekistan or the broader Central Asia region, early-stage counsel engagement can substantially improve enforcement outcomes — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

The body of judicial and administrative practice described above has several practical implications for foreign brand owners and their advisers.

First, the statutory guarantee of investor treatment under the 2019 Investment Law provides an arguable basis for challenging administrative decisions that effectively disadvantage foreign rights holders relative to domestic ones — including decisions to release detained goods or impose disproportionately low penalties on distributors of counterfeit merchandise. This argument has been advanced in administrative review proceedings with mixed, though increasingly favourable, results.

Second, the question of trademark registration scope is foundational. Courts have declined to order detention or destruction in matters where the rights holder's registration did not cover the specific goods classes involved in the infringement, regardless of the investor-protection framing. Foreign brand owners entering the Uzbekistan market should audit their existing International Bureau filings to confirm that Central Asian territorial coverage is both confirmed and appropriately broad.

Third, in cross-border contexts — particularly supply chains that pass through Russia, Kazakhstan, or other CIS members before entering Uzbekistan — rights holders face the structural challenge that the Eurasian Economic Union's parallel import liberalisation framework does not apply directly to Uzbekistan, which is not an EAEU member. This creates an enforcement asymmetry: goods that may enter Russia or Kazakhstan under a regional exhaustion doctrine can face different treatment upon re-export to Uzbekistan, or upon importation directly into Uzbekistan from a third-country source. The 2019 Investment Law's treaty-primacy clause and TRIPS compliance obligations are the relevant analytical anchors for this analysis.

For foreign law firms coordinating multi-jurisdictional brand protection programmes that include Uzbekistan exposure, the coordination question is whether Russian-jurisdiction enforcement steps — recording at the Russian Federal Customs Service, civil proceedings in Russian arbitrazh courts against importers — complement or conflict with simultaneous enforcement in Uzbekistan. In the matters reviewed for this commentary, the two tracks have generally operated independently, with information obtained in one jurisdiction informing — but not formally feeding into — the other. Structuring the programme to achieve maximum effect across both jurisdictions requires engagement of local counsel in each.

[CTA: Vetrov & Partners coordinates cross-border IP enforcement for foreign rights holders across the CIS, including Uzbekistan-facing mandates. Discuss your matter in confidence: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

• IP Protection and Enforcement in Uzbekistan: an overview for foreign rights holders (/jurisdictions/uzbekistan/ip/)
• Market Entry and Company Formation in Uzbekistan (/jurisdictions/uzbekistan/company-formation/)
• Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards in Uzbekistan (/jurisdictions/uzbekistan/enforcement/)

Q: What does this commentary change for foreign brand owners enforcing IP rights in Uzbekistan?

A: The emerging judicial practice described here clarifies that foreign rights holders have direct standing under both the 2019 Investment Law and Uzbekistan's international obligations to pursue customs detention and civil infringement claims without local incorporation. The more significant development is the courts' increasing willingness to apply lost-licence-revenue methodologies in damages assessments, rather than awarding nominal sums. For practical purposes, the commentary reinforces that border-level detention must be supported by a parallel civil or administrative claim to prevent detained goods from returning to circulation.

Q: What should foreign companies do in light of this development?

A: Three steps are advisable. First, audit trademark registration scope to confirm that International Bureau designations covering Uzbekistan extend to the full range of goods classes at risk of counterfeiting. Second, establish a recorded-rights-holder relationship with the Uzbekistan State Customs Committee before enforcement is needed — the application procedure is manageable but requires lead time. Third, for companies already running enforcement programmes in Russia or Kazakhstan, engage counsel familiar with both jurisdictions to assess whether CIS-side enforcement steps interact with — or inadvertently compromise — Uzbekistan-side claims, particularly in light of the different exhaustion frameworks applicable across EAEU and non-EAEU CIS members.

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009, recognised by Pravo-300 for eight consecutive years and listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's IP Protection & Enforcement practice advises foreign rights holders on brand protection, anti-counterfeiting strategy, and customs enforcement across the CIS region. Where matters extend to Uzbekistan and other Central Asian jurisdictions, the firm collaborates with trusted regional counsel, including contributing analysts embedded in those markets. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge with direct partner involvement on every engagement.

We are a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Nodira Yusupova Contributing Regional Analyst — Uzbekistan, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/contributions/