Published on Lexology, our latest article highlights key legal reforms, case law, and policy trends shaping Malta’s IP landscape in 2024 and early 2025.
Chetcuti Cauchi Advocates is pleased to announce the publication of its latest article on Lexology: Year in Review: Intellectual Property in Malta. Authored by Dr. Maria Chetcuti Cauchi and her team specialising in IP, the piece presents an insightful analysis of pivotal developments that have influenced Malta’s intellectual property landscape over the past year. The chapter, co-authored with Dr Susanna Grech Deguara, Dr Danielle Mercieca, and Dr Michela Noelle Seychell, explores recent developments in Malta’s IP landscape and surveys changes in legislation, landmark decisions, and emerging patterns in public attitudes toward IP rights at both the Maltese national and EU levels.
Key Highlights
Malta has established itself as a premier jurisdiction for entrepreneurs and businesses, providing a conducive environment for investment and expansion. This is mostly due to the jurisdiction’s comprehensive and well-structured legal framework, resilient economy, and competitive taxation system. The chapter tackles the key laws that cover intellectual property in Malta as well as case law and changes in regulation as highlighted below.
Boosting IP Investment: Legal Notice 229 of 2024
Published on 13 September 2024, Legal Notice 229 revised Malta’s Income Tax (Deductions) Rules to allow full deductions on capital expenditure related to intellectual property rights. Effective from the 2024 tax year, this measure significantly enhances Malta’s fiscal incentives for IP-related investment and development.
Fostering Data Access with IP Safeguards: Legal Notice 20 of 2025
On 24 January 2025, Legal Notice 20 introduced amendments that align Maltese law with Directive (EU) 2019/1024, promoting open access to public sector information. Although aimed at increasing data reuse, the regulation has direct implications for IP, requiring a careful balance between accessibility and the protection of rights.
IP Perception in Malta: Key Findings from the EUIPO Study
According to the 2023 EUIPO IP Perception Study, only 4% of Maltese respondents admitted to deliberately purchasing counterfeit sports merchandise—the lowest rate in the EU. However, half of younger respondents expressed willingness to buy counterfeits, and 22% accessed unauthorised sports content. These trends underscore the ongoing need for education and enforcement around IP rights.
Procedural Fairness in Trademark Opposition: Tazza Te’ v. Comptroller of Industrial Property
In a noteworthy Court of Appeal decision, Tazza Te’ succeeded in securing trademark registration after the court found procedural flaws in the opposition filed by Te fit-Tazza. The ruling reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in opposition proceedings and offers guidance on contesting administrative decisions in IP law.
Clarifying Heraldic Rights: The ‘JOHANNITER’ Trademark and the Maltese Cross
The EUIPO Board of Appeal overturned a refusal to register the ‘JOHANNITER’ mark, concluding it did not imitate the Maltese Cross and that Malta does not have exclusive control over the symbol. This decision helps delineate the boundaries between national symbols and registrable trademarks in the EU context.
Cultural IP in Focus: UNESCO Recognition of Malta’s Village Festa
Malta’s village festa, officially inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list in December 2023, showcases the island’s rich cultural identity. While not a direct IP development, this milestone reflects broader themes of cultural preservation, community ownership, and the potential for new forms of IP protection in heritage settings.
This article was published on Lexology, March 19th 2025
Copyright © 2025 Chetcuti Cauchi. This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking any action based on the contents of this document. Chetcuti Cauchi disclaims any liability for actions taken based on the information provided. Reproduction of reasonable portions of the content is permitted for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution is given and the content is not altered or presented in a false light.
