Ahmed Hankawi – Etihad

Dr. Ahmed Hankawi

Ahmed serves as the Owner and CEO of Hinkawi Group of Companies and holds the position of Managing Partner at Etihad Law Firm Ltd. His foray into the legal arena began in 2018, culminating in the establishment of the firm in 2019. Beyond his corporate endeavors, Ahmed has become a notable figure, actively participating as a speaker in various conferences in Iraq, including the distinguished Nineveh Youth Leaders forum.

Hailing from Mosul, his hometown, Ahmed is deeply committed to community service. He dedicates his legal expertise to pro bono initiatives, particularly focusing on projects in the Mosul region, thereby contributing to the welfare of his local community. As a legal luminary, Ahmed provides crucial legal consultations to both local and international companies. His influence extends to the financial sector, where he plays a key role in overseeing the legal aspects of Exchange companies, ensuring compliance with Central Bank of Iraq (CBI) instructions.

Currently, he pursuing a Ph.D. in law, Ahmed’s academic pursuits complement his leadership at Etihad Law Firm Ltd and its sister companies. His expertise spans various legal domains, including Commercial, Litigation, Banking, and Personal Status. His experience in criminal cases as a litigator lawyer further demonstrates the breadth of his legal proficiency, encompassing execution matters, debt claims, labor compensations, eviction cases, and official document corrections.

Distinguished as an Official Arbitrator authorized by the Geneva for International Arbitration, Ahmed represents clients before both Arabic and International Arbitration Committees and Courts. His commitment to education is evident through his attainment of a diploma in Broadcaster Programs for Training, through which he conducts training courses in legal and other fields.

Having served as a lawyer and legal advisor for numerous international and local companies, Ahmed has built a reputation for adeptly navigating claims, disputes, and various facets of commercial law. His multifaceted career reflects not only his entrepreneurial spirit but also his dedication to advancing the legal profession.

Experience

Participate as speaker in conferences related to the education field to guide the new generations.
Acting in lawsuits related to Personal Status law such as legitimate allotment, divorce, marriage documentations.
Represent client in lawsuits before all the Iraqi courts and its levels the criminal and civil, labour and others.
Companies’ registration for local and international clients which is their capital is more than 100 Million IQD.
Share sale and transfer for companies starting from drafting contracts to the stage of submission with the Registrar of Companies, General Commission of Taxes and obtain tax clearance letter.
Review contracts and provide legal advices such as agreements of Lease, Partnership.
Drafting contracts for employees of energy sector including details about the safety procedures and insurance.
Advice on oil, gas, energy and constructions contracts.
Advise on WHT for contractors and released from Taxation authorities.
Advising on taxes matters such as release the dues, taxes calculations and others.
Represent Exchange Money companies as a legal advisor, handle their legal matters with the governmental directorates and Central Bank of Iraq.
Acting in sale and purchase of Real Estate, drafting the relevant sale contract, negotiate with the governmental directorates regarding the imposed fines considered as breaching to the law.
Provide legal advice regarding the contracts of FIDIC, Banks, Petroleum and Engineering.
Advise CMS law firm on advertising online for one of the technology companies.

Admissions

Genève for International Arbitration
Iraqi Bar Association
Arab Bar Association
Iraqi Jurists Union
Arab Jurists Union
Arab Union for Arbitration and Settlement of Economy and Investment Dispute
Iraqi Engineering Union
Arab Engineering Union
International Academy for Mediation and Arbitration
International Trainer in the Norway Board
Trainer in the American institute for education applied

IP Experience

The case addressed the determination of whether there is a similarity between two TMs that could potentially mislead consumers. Upon reviewing the documents, it was found that the TMs share similarities in their core concept and external appearance, as both consist of a single word enclosed within a black rectangle, differing only by a single letter. The older TM has been registered since 2018 and enjoys priority and recognition in the local market, while the other TM is still under registration. It was emphasized that this similarity could lead to confusion between the two TMs. Furthermore, the TM causing the refusal is well-known and widely used. Accordingly, it’s concluded that registering the new TM could mislead and confuse consumers.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a new TM, citing significant similarity to their previously registered TM in Iraq since 2018 for the same product categories. The plaintiff highlighted that the resemblance lies in the external appearance and core concept, with both designs featuring a key word within a black rectangle, differing only slightly in letters. This similarity could mislead consumers and cause confusion. The plaintiff also emphasized the substantial financial efforts invested in promoting their TM and achieving widespread recognition locally and regionally. After reviewing the documents, it was found that the two TMs are highly similar, with only minor differences in a single word, making differentiation challenging, particularly since both TMs operate within the same product category. It was confirmed that the plaintiff’s TM holds precedence and enjoys substantial market recognition, while the new TM is still pending registration. Based on these findings, it’s concluded that registering the new TM could confuse consumers and infringe upon the plaintiff’s legally protected rights, especially given the overlap between the two TMs in the market.
The plaintiff objected to the TM Registrar’s decision to reject the registration of their TM under class (9-W) due to alleged similarity with another previously registered TM. Upon review, it was found that there are clear differences between the two TMs in terms of syllables, external appearance, and pronunciation. The plaintiff’s TM consists of three segments in both Arabic and English, while the other TM consists of only one segment. Furthermore, the core concept of each TM is distinctly different: the plaintiff’s TM is associated with a specific cultural and artistic theme, whereas the other TM refers to a natural food product. No evidence was found to suggest that any similarity exists that could mislead or confuse consumers. It’s concluded that registering the plaintiff’s TM does not create any risk of confusion or misdirection for consumers and recommends approval of the registration.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a new TM, accompanied by a specific design, under class (32-B, C), claiming it resembles their globally renowned TM, which enjoys widespread recognition in the field of games and entertainment, particularly among children. The plaintiff argued that their TM’s fame and registration in multiple countries, combined with the defendant’s use of a similar design on child-targeted products, could mislead consumers and create a false impression that the products originate from the plaintiff’s company. Upon review, similarities in design and core concept were identified between the two TMs, heightening the likelihood of confusion among consumers, especially younger audiences who may lack the ability to distinguish between the marks. It was observed that the plaintiff’s TM is globally recognized and has been in long-term use, whereas the defendant’s TM lacks local or international notoriety. It’s concluded that registering the new TM could mislead consumers and infringe upon the legally protected rights of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff objected to the decision of the TM Registrar to accept the opposing company’s objection to the registration of their TM, citing significant similarity with the opposing company’s previously registered mark under the same product class (3). The plaintiff argued that their TM is distinctive and has been in use since 2010, while the opposing party claimed that the substantial similarity in overall appearance and core concept between the two marks could lead to consumer confusion. Upon review, it was found that both TMs are written in English within a black rectangular frame and share a similar key word, with only minor differences in lettering. This similarity was deemed likely to confuse consumers, particularly since both marks pertain to the same product category involving perfumes and body care products. Additionally, the opposing company’s mark, registered since 2018, benefits from legal protection and local market presence, whereas the plaintiff’s mark is still under registration and has not yet achieved legal protection. It’s concluded that the similarity between the two marks is significant enough to cause consumer confusion and supports the TM Registrar’s decision to accept the objection and reject the plaintiff’s TM registration.
The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their TM registration under product class (35/A B), citing the local and international recognition of their mark and its registration in multiple countries, including the country of origin. Upon review, it was determined that the phrase submitted for registration qualifies as a motivational slogan, which lacks the distinct characteristics required of a TM under the applicable Iraqi TM Law. This law does not permit the registration of commercial phrases or slogans as TMs. It was clarified that slogans are widely recognized internationally as phrases associated with companies, but Iraqi law does not acknowledge them as registrable TMs, unlike the laws of some other jurisdictions that do allow such registrations. Accordingly, the decision by the TM Registrar to reject the registration was deemed correct and aligned with the provisions of Iraqi law.
The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their appeal against the registration of a new TM by the defendant, arguing that there is no similarity with their previously registered TMs. Upon review, it was found that all of the plaintiff’s TMs are registered under the same product class and share similarities with the new TM in both visual design and core concept, including a common key term and associated design element. The significant similarity between the marks, both in design and concept, is likely to mislead consumers and cause confusion, particularly given the overlap in product classification. Therefore, the plaintiff’s objection is justified, and the decision to reject the appeal lacks a valid legal basis.
The plaintiff filed an objection against the rejection of their appeal regarding the registration of a new TM under the name of the second defendant, claiming that the new TM resembles their previously registered TMs in both visual appearance and core concept. Upon review, it was found that all of the plaintiff’s TMs are registered under the same product class and share similarities with the new TM, including a common key term and design elements associated with the same concept. This substantial similarity in design and name could mislead consumers and create confusion, particularly given the identical product classification. It’s concluded that the plaintiff’s objection is justified, and the decision to reject the appeal lacks a valid legal basis.
The plaintiff objected to the decision to reject the registration of a TM under the specified product category, citing that the name was deemed misleading as it allegedly referred to a country. Upon reviewing the relevant laws governing TMs and geographical indicators, it was determined that the rejection lacked a clear legal basis. The name used in the TM does not violate the restrictions outlined in Article 5 of the TM Law and serves as a general descriptor rather than referring to any specific country. Furthermore, it was established that the TM is registered in several other countries, strengthening the plaintiff’s position. It’s found that the rejection of the TM registration legally unjustified and confirms that the application aligns with established legal standards.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a TM, claiming its similarity to their internationally renowned mark in the field of children’s games could mislead consumers, particularly children, and cause confusion. Upon review, it was found that the defendant’s mark features a distinct word and a cartoon bird in specific colors, while the plaintiff’s mark consists of unique designs, multiple distinctive colors, and is registered for specific categories such as children’s games and cleaning products. A comparative analysis revealed significant differences between the two marks in terms of name, colors, and bird design, preventing any resemblance that could mislead consumers. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s mark is globally recognized due to its extensive use and widespread popularity, whereas the defendant’s mark lacks both local and international recognition. It’s concluded that registering the defendant’s TM does not infringe upon the plaintiff’s rights or mislead the target audience.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a TM, citing its resemblance to their internationally recognized mark widely used in children’s games and entertainment. Upon review, it was found that the defendant’s mark consists of a distinct word and a cartoon bird in various colors, while the plaintiff’s mark features unique cartoon birds with distinctive shapes and colors representing a well-known product. No substantial similarity was observed between the two marks in terms of overall appearance or core concept, reducing the likelihood of consumer confusion or deception. The plaintiff’s mark is confirmed to be globally renowned, enjoying extensive use and widespread recognition, particularly among children. Conversely, the defendant’s mark has not demonstrated any notable local or international reputation. It’s concluded that registering the defendant’s mark does not lead to confusion or deception and affirms that the two marks differ significantly enough to prevent any infringement of the plaintiff’s rights.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a TM in class (32-B, C), claiming it closely resembles their internationally recognized mark, widely used in children’s games and entertainment. The objection was based on concerns that the cartoon design in the defendant’s mark could mislead consumers, particularly children. Upon reviewing the TMs, it was determined that the defendant’s mark includes a distinct word and a cartoon bird that is entirely different from the cartoon birds featured in the plaintiff’s mark. The designs, colors, and overall concepts of the two marks show clear differences, significantly reducing the likelihood of confusion or deception. It was emphasized that the similarity between TMs should be assessed based on their overall appearance and core concept, rather than on specific details. Given the differences in design, name, and nature of the marks, it was concluded that there is insufficient similarity to mislead consumers. Additionally, it was noted that while the plaintiff’s mark is globally renowned and enjoys legal protection, particularly in the gaming industry, the defendant’s mark lacks comparable recognition locally or internationally. It’s recommended that there is no legal basis to prevent the registration of the defendant’s mark while affirming the continued protection and widespread recognition of the plaintiff’s mark within its original field.

The plaintiff objected to the decision of the TM Registrar rejecting the registration of their TM in class (9-W), citing alleged similarity to an existing TM registered across multiple classes, including the shared class. Upon review, it was determined that there is a clear distinction between the two marks in terms of meaning and context; the rejected mark is associated with cultural and artistic content, specifically related to illustrated stories, while the other mark pertains to a food product. Furthermore, the rejected mark has demonstrated uniqueness and prominence, supported by international registrations and extensive use on digital platforms and social media, reinforcing its distinctiveness and reputation. It’s confirmed that no substantial similarity exists that could mislead or confuse consumers. It’s recommended allowing the registration of the rejected mark, emphasizing that it does not cause confusion or deception among consumers and maintains its unique identity.
The plaintiff objected to the TM Registrar’s decision rejecting the registration of their TM in class (9-W) due to alleged similarity with an existing TM registered across multiple classes, including the shared class. Upon review, it was determined that there are clear distinctions between the two marks in terms of meaning, phonetics, and context. The rejected mark is associated with cultural content linked to widely recognized illustrated media on the internet, while the other mark represents a food product used for promoting various items. It was confirmed that both marks hold international registrations and have independent uses. The rejected mark enjoys extensive use on applications and websites, whereas the other mark is utilized in entirely different contexts. It’s also highlighted that the precision of online search mechanisms significantly reduces the likelihood of any confusion between the two marks. Given the differences in purpose and target audience for each mark, it’s concluded that registering the rejected mark would not mislead or confuse consumers. They recommended approval of the rejected mark, emphasizing that no substantial similarity exists that could cause uncertainty or misrepresentation in markets or digital platforms.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a new TM, claiming significant similarities with their previously registered TMs, which could mislead and confuse consumers. Upon review, it was found that the two TMs share substantial similarities in their visual appearance and core concept, particularly in the essential part of the name, as well as in the use of similar design elements, making it difficult for the average consumer to differentiate between them. The study also revealed that the plaintiff’s TM enjoys widespread recognition and a strong presence both locally and internationally, while the new TM lacks comparable reputation or market use. It’s concluded that registering the new TM could mislead consumers and infringe on the plaintiff’s rights, thereby supporting the plaintiff’s request to cancel the registration of the contested TM.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a new TM, arguing that it bears a significant resemblance to their well-known TM, which has a long history of registration and use in the market. The plaintiff claimed that the substantial similarity between the TMs, particularly in the core part of the name, could mislead consumers and create confusion, especially since both products belong to the same category and are sold over-the-counter. Upon review, it was established that the similarity extends to the spelling and phonetic pronunciation, making it challenging for the average consumer to distinguish between the two TMs. It’s confirmed that the plaintiff’s TM is distinctive and well-known both locally and regionally, owned by a globally reputable company. It’s concluded that registering the new TM would mislead consumers and constitute unfair competition, supporting the plaintiff’s request to cancel the registration of the contested TM.
The plaintiff filed an objection to the registration of a new TM in the same product category, citing significant similarities with their well-known and long-established TM. The plaintiff argued that the resemblance between the two TMs includes phonetic similarity and the core element of the name, which could mislead and confuse consumers, particularly since both products are marketed over-the-counter. Upon reviewing the TMs, it was determined that the plaintiff’s TM is distinctive and well-recognized both locally and regionally, enjoying legal protection under the Paris Convention and TM laws. Based on these findings, it’s concluded that registering the new TM could cause consumer confusion and supports the plaintiff’s request to cancel the registration of the contested TM.
An objection was filed against the decision of the TM Registrar to cancel the registration of a TM in product category (3) due to its similarity with another previously registered TM. After examining both TMs, it was found that there is significant similarity in appearance and concept, with only a minor difference in a single letter, which increases the likelihood of consumer confusion or deception. The study also revealed that the previously registered TM has priority, being registered since 2018, and enjoys wide recognition in both local and global markets, whereas the other TM is still in the registration process. Based on these findings, the decision of the TM Registrar to cancel the disputed TM was upheld.
A request was submitted to overturn the decision rejecting the registration of a TM in product category (32-A-B-C) based on the existence of five conflicting TMs. Upon reviewing the documents, it was found that the cited TMs differ significantly from the requested TM in terms of wording and phonetic characteristics, with no similarities likely to cause confusion or mislead the consumer audience. It was also noted that this product category primarily targets adults, who possess the ability to distinguish between TMs. Additionally, discrepancies in the reference numbers of the attached TMs were observed, further supporting the request to annul the rejection decision.
An objection was raised against the respondent’s decision to approve the registration of a new TM in product category 33, citing the prior ownership of a registered TM in the same category with a five-year precedence. The contested TM closely resembles the objector’s TM, which enjoys significant local and international recognition, while the new TM has not demonstrated any notable reputation. It was highlighted that the substantial similarity between the two TMs, with only a minor difference—a single additional letter that does not alter the overall pronunciation—could lead to confusion and mislead consumers. This supports the validity of the objection and the request to overturn the approval of the new TM registration.
An objection was raised against the registration of a new TM that shares a common word with a previously registered TM in the same product category. The new TM includes an additional distinctive word, making it a composite mark. There was no evidence presented to indicate consumer confusion or deception, nor was there evidence of widespread recognition for either mark. Based on this, the registration of the new TM does not result in any likelihood of confusion or misleading consumers.
The classification of products in the Iraqi market, particularly non-alcoholic malt beverages, was reviewed to assess their potential inclusion in category 32/A, which covers beer. Observations indicated that retail stores do not display beer alongside juices due to regulatory requirements, and individuals under 18 are prohibited from entering such establishments, reducing the likelihood of confusion. The classification of non-alcoholic malt beverages under this category was rejected. Beer is inherently recognized as an alcoholic beverage, and a parallel was drawn to non-alcoholic grape juice, which cannot be categorized as an alcoholic beverage.