Jurisdiction Overview
Over the past five years, Uzbekistan has developed an increasingly active intellectual property (IP) system relative to its economic size and stage of development. The country has also established a growing reputation as an emerging market in Central Asia attracting foreign direct investment, supported by gradual diversification of its economy into sectors such as IT, pharmaceuticals, and fast-moving consumer goods.
A key driver of these developments has been Uzbekistan’s ongoing preparation for accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has prompted significant legal and institutional reforms across multiple sectors. Most importantly, intellectual property law has been among the most actively reformed areas, with improvements to registration procedures, licensing and recordal systems, and enforcement mechanisms. International cooperation, including technical assistance from multilateral organizations, has further contributed to identifying gaps in the system and shaping legislative amendments.
Following this strategy, 2025 marked a particularly significant phase in the evolution of Uzbekistan’s IP framework, with reforms aimed at strengthening enforcement and aligning domestic legislation with international standards.
Key Legal Amendments
Expansion of Liability for IP Infringement
Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code on Administrative Liability adopted in May 2025 introduced a structured and tiered liability regime for IP infringement.
The reforms established three new criminal offences. Article 149¹ addresses violations of copyright and related rights, including unlawful reproduction, distribution, and misrepresentation of ownership. Article 149² concerns the unauthorized use of trademarks, geographical indications, and trade names, including confusingly similar designations. Article 149³ extends liability to infringements of industrial property rights, including patents, utility models, industrial designs, semiconductor topologies, and plant varieties.
Sanctions for these offences include fines, corrective labor, restriction of liberty, or imprisonment for up to three years. Criminal liability applies where material damage exceeds a statutory threshold of 300 to 500 base calculation values, approximately USD 9,900 to 16,500. The framework also introduces a compliance-oriented mechanism, whereby first-time offenders may be exempt from liability if damages are compensated within 30 days.
For infringements that do not meet the criminal threshold, administrative liability applies, with penalties including fines ranging from 200 -1000 USD, and seizure of infringing goods.
Notably, criminal proceedings are complaint-based, meaning that enforcement is contingent upon action by the right holder.
This reform represents a structural shift from a system primarily focused on moral rights to one that provides comprehensive protection of economic rights. It also introduces a dual-track enforcement model, enabling right holders to combine administrative, civil and/or criminal law-based courses of action depending on the scale and urgency of the infringement.
Policy Overhaul
Presidential Resolution No. 358, adopted in November 2025, sets out a forward-looking policy framework for the development of the IP ecosystem for 2026 to 2027.
The Resolution envisages a reduction in examination timelines for IP registration by half through the use of artificial intelligence tools, alongside an increase in the number of registered IP objects to 100,000 and geographical indications to 40. It also expands the role of the Ministry of Healthcare in monitoring compliance of biologically active substances with IP rights.
A central component of the reform is the planned establishment of a state-operated digital platform for IP protection, which is expected to support application processing, digital contracting, publication of enforcement-related information, and monitoring of counterfeit goods.
Despite its strategic importance, the Resolution remains largely policy-driven and does not yet provide detailed guidance on implementation. Its effectiveness will depend on further legislative harmonization and the development of administrative practice. At present, the institutional framework remains centered on the Ministry of Justice and its specialized IP bodies.
Civil Law Remedies, Seizure of Infringing Goods
Law No. ZRU-1080, adopted in August 2025, clarifies the availability of seizure and destruction of infringing goods as a civil law remedy.
Under this law, courts may order the seizure and destruction of infringing products in civil proceedings, and the infringing party is required to bear all associated costs, including those related to packaging and labeling.
Practical Assessment
The 2025 reforms have already begun to generate tangible enforcement activity. Administrative measures and civil litigation are increasingly used in parallel to address infringement.
For example, enforcement actions have included penalties imposed on local manufacturers for unauthorized use of pharmaceutical brands, as well as successful trademark litigation brought by global fashion giants (Puma, Hugo Boss and e.t.c) against local distributors of counterfeit goods.
In addition, customs enforcement continues to play a growing role. Uzbek customs authorities reported multiple attempts to import counterfeit goods in early 2026 with a total value of 500,000 USD, including industrial equipment and consumer products originating from jurisdictions, such as China, Turkey and Russia. Annual figures likewise indicate sustained interception activity involving foreign counterfeit goods.
Cross-Border Considerations (Focus on Dispute Resolution)
From a cross-border perspective, Uzbekistan’s legal framework imposes specific structural requirements on foreign right holders. In particular, foreign entities are required to act through locally registered patent attorneys in matters relating to IP prosecution and enforcement.
This requirement makes local representation essential not only for formal compliance but also for effective navigation of administrative procedures and enforcement processes. In practice, the success of enforcement actions often depends on the ability to manage interactions with multiple government bodies and to coordinate evidence collection across institutions.
Inter-agency coordination remains a key practical challenge. The involvement of multiple stakeholders in technical assessments and investigations increases the need for structured communication and strategic case management. As a result, local expertise and familiarity with institutional practice are critical factors in successful enforcement.
Outlook
With a strong momentum gained over this year, Uzbekistan now possesses a relatively comprehensive legislative framework for IP protection and enforcement. The primary challenges lie not in the absence of legal mechanisms, but in their practical application, including procedural clarity, institutional coordination, and consistency of enforcement practice.
As enforcement activity continues to increase and administrative systems evolve, it is anticipated that Uzbekistan will further strengthen its position as an emerging jurisdiction with a developing but increasingly effective IP protection regime.
