Minimal Use, Maximum Protection: A Troubling Trend in Kazakhstan

Kazakh court decisions demonstrate an inconsistent and, at times, unpredictable approach to non-use in trademark disputes, where even limited forms of use may suffice to maintain broad protection. This is illustrated by a recent decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of Astana in a dispute brought by ALIBABA INNOVATION PRIVATE LIMITED, a subsidiary of Alibaba Group, issued in August 2025 and upheld on appeal in December 2025. The issue is whether minimal use of a trademark for a single service can preserve an entire class, even where the law refers to “goods”.

While the court’s reasoning formally follows the applicable provisions, it suggests a particularly flexible interpretation of “use” and extends rules drafted for goods to service-based registrations.

Background of the Case

The dispute concerned a trademark registered in Kazakhstan in Classes 35 and 43, covering business and advertising services, as well as restaurant services. The mark (No. 45270) was owned by ARQA ASTYQ LTD, a local restaurant operator: its use in relation to Class 43 was not contested.

Image

ALIBABA INNOVATION sought revocation for non-use in Class 35 arguing that the registration constituted an obstacle to the protection of its own ALIBABA mark and the mark was used only for restaurant services, not for business or advertising services.

In response, the defendant relied on advertising contracts and related promotional materials linked to the restaurant as evidence of use in Class 35. The court accepted this evidence and held that use in relation to at least one service within the class was sufficient to preserve protection for the entire class. This approach was upheld on appeal.

This raises questions as to how non-use provisions are interpreted in practice, particularly regarding the distinction between goods and services, and partial revocation.

Statutory Interpretation

Article 19(4) of the “Trademark Law” refers explicitly to “products” (goods) in the context of partial revocation, whereas the present dispute concerns services in Class 35. This discrepancy was not addressed: the courts neither explained how the provision extends to services nor relied on analogy or systematic interpretation. Instead, they proceeded directly to assess whether there was any use within the class as a whole, leaving unresolved how non-use provisions should operate in the context of mixed goods-and-services trademark registrations.

This has practical implications. Since the legislation allows revocation in respect of “part” of the registered goods, the analysis would ordinarily focus on specific goods rather than the class as a whole. The approach adopted by the courts departs from this logic, effectively turning partial revocation into an all-or-nothing approach and allowing protection for an entire class to be maintained on the basis of minimal activity.

What Counts as “Use”?

Kazakh courts appear to adopt a broad understanding of trademark use, accepting advertising materials, contractual arrangements, and business documentation as sufficient evidence.

This distinction is critical. Internal promotion within a restaurant does not necessarily amount to the provision of business or advertising services. By accepting such evidence, the courts effectively lower the threshold of use.

As noted by Zhanna Abilkhanova, Kazakh practice has shown a willingness to accept relatively limited forms of use, sometimes approaching “symbolic” use, as sufficient to maintain trademark registrations.

Comparative Perspective

By contrast, EU trademark law requires “genuine use”, a real commercial exploitation of the mark consistent with its essential function of indicating origin. Use must therefore be more than merely token. Accordingly, use limited to certain goods or services does not justify maintaining protection for an entire class.

In addition, as regards advertising services, these should only be services rendered to someone else for their advertising, while advertising one’s own goods or services does not qualify as advertising services. This aspect does not appear to have been addressed in the decision.

Conclusion

This case suggests that limited or ancillary use of a trademark may suffice to preserve protection for an entire class. More fundamentally, it reflects a lack of judicial engagement with key issues of statutory interpretation. By extending a provision formulated for goods to services without explanation, and by treating classes as indivisible units, the courts leave important doctrinal questions unresolved.

Without further clarification, this approach risks undermining the substantive function of non-use proceedings.