A Comparative Analysis of the Recoverability of Lost Profits in Intellectual Property Disputes under Iranian Law and the Paris Convention

Document Type : Scientific research

Authors

mohammadhosein taghipoor darzi naghibi ¹

Reza Zakershoub ²

¹ Assistant Professor of private law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

² Master Of Laws (LL.M.) in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22067/economlaw.2026.94893.1480

Abstract

The legislative authority, through the enactment of the Industrial Property Protection Act, addressed three key considerations: First, Article 150 of the Act repeals the previous Law on Registration of Patents, Industrial Designs, and Trademarks. This represents a clear legislative intent to replace the old framework. Second, Article 72 states that in proven cases of patent infringement, the infringer must compensate all resulting damages, including potential profits that qualify as actual losses. This confirms the compensability of lucrum cessans under Iranian law but only in the context of patent rights. The law does not address the issue of compensating loss of profit in relation to other intellectual property categories such as trademarks or industrial designs. Third, Article 149 provides that a new executive bylaw must be prepared within six months of the law’s enactment. Until then, the bylaw of the repealed law remains applicable unless it conflicts with the new Act. However, as of this writing, the new bylaw has not yet been issued. Article 181 of the old bylaw states that only “actual damages” may be recovered in IP disputes, but it is silent on whether lost profit qualifies as such. This has created theoretical disagreement, opening space for two interpretations. The more convincing view holds that although the legislator is silent about other IP rights, there is no explicit prohibition against the recovery of lucrum cessans. The broader legislative trend illustrated by Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 5 and 6 of the Civil Liability Act treats certain and provable loss of profit as compensable. Hence, patent rights should not be treated as an exception among IP rights. Additionally, the principle of non-liability in the absence of legal foundation applies only where there is no legal reasoning at all. Legislative silence does not imply denial of recovery.

Keywords

Comparative analysis

Loss of profits

Paris Convention

Industrial property

Intellectual property

Subjects

• Intellectual Property Law

---

References

[1] Afrasiab, M. (2017). Protection of industrial property in Iranian legal system with emphasis on judicial practice (Doctoral dissertation, Allameh Tabataba’i University). (In Persian)

[2] Amini, M.; Piri, J. (2021). The criterion for assessing damages arising from contractual breach in legal systems and international instruments; guidelines for Iranian law. Judiciary Law Journal, (114), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.22106/JLJ.2020.123783.3294 (In Persian)

[3] Asghari Aghmashhadi, F. (2002). Loss of profit damages in Iranian law and the 1980 CISG. Name-ye Mofid Journal, (29), 77–94. (In Persian)

[4] Askari, Z. (2014). Examination of Priority right in industrial property (Master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modares University). (In Persian)

[5] Aslani, H. R. (2010). Industrial property rights in cyber space (1st ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[6] Austin, G. W. (2013). The territoriality of United States trademark law. The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, (28), 1–25.

[7] Babaei, I. (2023). Civil liability law based on critique and judicial precedents (Vol. 1, 6th ed.). Tehran: Judiciary Publications Center. (In Persian)

[8] Bana e Niyasari, M. (2010). Recovering Lost Profit in International Disputes. International law Review, (43), 203–260. (In Persian)

[9] Bariklo, A. (2020). Civil liability (9th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[10] Bradley, C. A. (1997). Territorial intellectual property rights in an age of globalism. Virginia Journal of International Law, (37), 505–586.

[11] Chisum, D. S. (1997). Normative and empirical territoriality in intellectual property: Lessons from patent law. Virginia Journal of International Law, (37).

[12] Cornish, W.; Llewelyn, D.; Aplin, T. (2013). Intellectual property: Patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights (8th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

[13] Dinwoodie, G. B. (2004). Trademarks and territory: Detaching trademark law from the nation-state. Houston Law Review, 39(3), 885–973.

[14] Dinwoodie, G. B. (2005). Conflicts and international copyright litigation: The role of international norms. In Basedow, Drexl, Kur & Metzger (Eds.), Intellectual property in the conflict of laws(195-218).  Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

[15] Doi, T. (2002). The territoriality principle of patent protection and conflict of laws: A review of Japanese court decisions. Fordham International Law Journal, (26), 377–395.

[16] Emami, S. H. (1987). Civil law  (Vol. 1, 6th ed.). Tehran: Eslamiyeh Bookstore Publishing. (In Persian)

[17] Esmaeili, M. (1998). Theory of damages (1st ed.). Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications. (In Persian)

[18] Ghasemzadeh, S. M. (2011). Obligations And Non -Contractual Civil Liability (9th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[19] Ghorbanifar, M. (2017). Comparative study of applicable law on trademark infringement with emphasis on Paris Convention, TRIPS Agreement, and Rome II regulations, and its comparison with Iranian law. Business Research Quarterly, (84), 93–130. (In Persian)

[20] Goldstein, P.; Hugenholtz, P. B. (2013). International copyright: Principles, law, and practice (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[21] Grimshaw, K. (2001). International upheaval: Patent independence protectionists and the Hague conference. IBrief/Patents & Technology. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.duke.edu.

[22] Harpwood, V. (2000). Principles of tort law (4th ed.). London: Cavendish Publishing Limited.

[23] Harpwood, V. (2009). Modern tort law (7th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

[24] Hojjati Ashrafi, G. (2004). Complete collection of commercial and trade laws and regulations (1st ed.). Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publishing. (In Persian)

[25] Hosseinpour, H. (2016). Study of legal remedies for trademark infringement with emphasis on judicial practice (Master’s thesis, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch). (In Persian)

[26] Kasehgari, H. (2018). The Principle of territorial protection in certain aspects of industrial property under national and international instruments (Master’s thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University). (In Persian)

[27] Katouzian, N. (2013). Introductory course in civil law: Property and ownership (38th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[28] Katouzian, N. (2025). Non-Contractual Obligation: Civil Liability(General rule) (Vol. 1, 6th ed.). Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publishing. (In Persian)

[29] Laskar, M. E.; Narang, C. (2013). National treatment and efficient protection of IPR as adopted in IP treaties. Symbiosis Law School Pune.

[30] Markesinis, B. S.; Bell, J.; Janssen, A. (2019). Markesinis’s German law of tort: A comparative treatise (5th ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

[31] Mirhosseini, S. H. (2008). Patent law (1st ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[32] Mirhosseini, S. H. (2021). Trademark law (4th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[33] Mirhosseini, S. H. (2024). Industrial design law (2nd ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[34] Mirshekari, A; Hosseini, F. S.; Samadi, A. (2023). The Comparative Study Of Expected Benefit With Focus on Iranian Judicial Procedure. Judiciary Law Journal, (124), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.22106/JLJ.2021.521789.3889 (In Persian)

[35] Mohammadi, A. (2014). Rules of jurisprudence (13th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[36] Morris, P. S. (2020). Private intellectual property regulation in public international law. University of California, Davis Law Review, 26(1), 148–169.

[37] Mousavi Khomeini, R. A. (2000). Tahrir al-Wasilah (Vol. 2). Tehran: Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works. (In Arabic)

[38] Naraghi, M. A. (1996). Awa’id al-Ayyam. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office Publishing. (In Arabic)

[39] Peukert, A. (2012). Territoriality and extraterritoriality in intellectual property law. In Handl & Zekoll (Eds.), Beyond territoriality: Transnational legal authority in an age of globalisation (pp. 189–228). Leiden/Boston: Brill Academic Publishing(Queen Mary Studies in International Law).

[40] Reiss, S. M. (n.d.). Commentary on the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Lex-IP.com. Retrieved from https://lex-ip.com.

[41] Safaei, S. H. (2012). Introductory course in civil law: General rules of contracts (Vol. 2, 13th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[42] Safaei, S. H. (2014). Introductory course in civil law: Persons and property (Vol. 1, 17th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[43] Safaei, S. H.; Rahimi, H. (2020). Civil liability (non-contractual obligations) (13th ed.). Tehran: SAMT Publications(Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Humanities). (In Persian)

[44] Sheikhi, M. (2024). Principles of intellectual property rights (2nd ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)

[45] Symeonides, S. C. (2004). Territoriality and personality in tort conflicts. In Einhorn, T., & Siehr, K. (Eds.), Intercontinental cooperation through private international law: Essays in memory of Peter Nygh (pp. 22–41). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.