ISLAMABAD, July 20, 2026: The Competition Commission of Pakistan has imposed a penalty of Rs5 million on MCI-Bureau of Inspection & Certifications Pakistan for fraudulently adopting a trademark and logo closely resembling those of Bureau Veritas, a France-based global testing, inspection and certification company.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!According to the CCP, the conduct violated Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010, which prohibits deceptive marketing practices.
The proceedings were initiated following a complaint filed by Bureau Veritas. The company alleged that MCI-Bureau of Inspection & Certifications Pakistan and MCI-Bureau of Inspection & Certifications United Kingdom had adopted a deceptively similar trade name and logo, which could mislead consumers into believing that their services were associated with Bureau Veritas.
After examining the available evidence, the Commission concluded that the respondent had copied the dominant features of Bureau Veritas’ registered trademark and logo, including the word “Bureau” and other distinctive elements.
Applying the principles of “overall similarity” and “net general impression,” the CCP held that the similarities constituted fraudulent use of another undertaking’s trademark.
The Commission observed that differences in the colour scheme were not sufficient to distinguish the respondent’s logo, particularly because inspection reports and certification documents are frequently reproduced in black and white. It also noted that consumers do not usually compare competing logos side by side.
The CCP further found that MCI Bureau was aware of the longstanding reputation and goodwill of Bureau Veritas. The company’s withdrawal of its trademark registration application after receiving the CCP’s show-cause notice further strengthened the inference that it recognised the similarity between the two marks.
The Commission also stated that the respondent failed to establish the expertise, technical competence and accreditation required for specialised certification services.
According to the decision, the respondent’s subsequent business, Inspect Assure, also failed to provide credible evidence of the required competence and accreditation, creating a risk of consumer deception.
In addition to the financial penalty, the CCP directed MCI-Bureau to immediately stop using the complainant’s trademark, adopt a clearly distinguishable mark and obtain the necessary accreditation before offering certification services.
The company has also been ordered to submit a compliance report within 60 days. Failure to comply may result in further penalties.
The CCP said the decision was not limited to the copying of a trademark. It was also aimed at protecting consumers and legitimate businesses from deception, preserving confidence in testing, inspection and certification services, and preventing businesses from unfairly benefiting from the reputation and goodwill of established international brands without possessing the required expertise, competence and accreditation.