In a recent article on the popular website, Techdirt the first line reads: “we learn of a new proposed copyright law in Kenya that not only would be a disaster for the internet in that country, but where the people pushing it [Edward Sigei of Kenya Copyright Board] don’t even seem to understand what they’re talking about. The key element: forcing ISPs to be copyright cops and putting liability on them if they somehow fail to magically stop piracy.”
This blogger is shocked that Techdirt would recklessly publish a piece that tarnishes an entire country’s image and defames a senior copyright expert merely on the basis of one sketchy news article without doing any form of fact-checking or independent research.
This week President Kenyatta (pictured above) signed into law the Companies Bill 2015 that does away with the Companies Act Chapter 486 of the Laws of Kenya which is an archaic piece of legislation dating back to 1948. The new Companies Act is aimed at revolutionising business in the country by removing various pre-existing legislative stumbling blocks to doing business in Kenya. From an intellectual property (IP) perspective, the new Act has several important provisions that will affect how IP assets are managed by various business entities.
With over 1,000 sections, the new Act is incredibly detailed (bulky) and comprehensive. It codifies common law principles – in particular, the indoor management rule and common law fiduciary duties of directors. Along with this, it modernises company law by recognising electronic communication and the use of websites and other electronic avenues for a company’s communications. The new Act has also increased the penalties and fines for offences relating to companies. This blogpost will highlight some of the major changes in the new Companies Act.
Readers of this blog will recall a previous report here that the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) reinvigorated under the chairmanship of Polycarp Igathe took the unprecedented step of sending four of its senior officers on compulsory leave following numerous complaints from manufacturers, specifically, owners of intellectual property (IP) rights, against the officers who are allegedly engaged in misconduct and defeating the very purpose for which they were engaged in combating counterfeiting. The ACA officers sent on compulsory leave included; Deputy Director for Enforcement, Prosecution and Legal Services Mr. Johnson Adera, Assistant Director for Enforcement Mr. Abdikadir Mohamed, Anti-Counterfeit Inspector II Mr. Weldon Kiprotich Sigei and Anti-Counterfeit Inspector I, Mr. Sammy Arekai Sarich.
This blogger has learned the disgraced ACA officers have now sued ACA along with its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Acting Executive Director and Acting Deputy Director Finance and Administration before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in the case of Johnson Otieno Adera & 3 others v Anti-Counterfeit Agency & 3 others  eKLR.
In recent media reports here and here, Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) reveals that it has proposed draft legal provisions to deal with the liability of internet/online intermediaries. KECOBO Chief Legal Counsel (CLC) has been kind enough to share with this blogger a copy of the proposed draft legal provisions available here. KECOBO CLC has also indicated to this blogger that there are plans underway to hold a public forum in the coming months to discuss the draft provisions and receive comments from the public.
The image above is a collage of screenshots from the websites of Standard Bank and Barclays Bank showing that both banks have banking products/services branded with the identical words: “Prestige Banking”. In this connection, readers of this blog will no doubt have come across the advertisement of the application for registration of Trade Mark Application (T.M.A) Number 79424 “PRESTIGE BANKING” (WORDS) by Barclays Bank PLC on pages 10-12 of the August 2015 Industrial Property Journal. As a result, this blogger reckons that the stage is set for Standard Bank to oppose the registration of this mark by Barclays Bank, if it so wishes.
In this regard, Standard Bank would also wish to consider the recently published ruling of the Registrar of Trade Mark in the matter referenced as In Re TMA No. 79424 “BARCLAYS PRESTIGE BANKING”, EX PARTE HEARING., 6th February 2015. In this ex parte hearing, Barclays appeared before the Registrar to challenge the latter’s decision to reject Barclays’ applications for “BARCLAYS PRESTIGE BANKING” (WORDS) and “PRESTIGE BANKING” (WORDS) for being similar to the mark SMA NO. 2976 “PRESTIGE PLAN” (WORDS AND DEVICE) in the name of the Standard Bank of South Africa with respect to services of a similar description and character as those in respect of which the applications by Barclays had been made. A copy of the ruling is available here.
This blogger has received a copy of a recent trade mark ruling by the Registrar of Trade Marks referenced as In Re TMA No. 68687 “KINGSTONE”, Opposition By Bridgestone Corporation, 25th May 2015. A copy of the ruling is available here.
In this matter, Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd applied for registration of “KINGSTONE” as a word mark in Class 12 of the International Classification with respect to tyres. Bridgestone Corporation opposed the registration of the mark by stating that its mark “BRIDGESTONE” is a well-known mark in Kenya and around the world registered in various classes including class 12. Therefore Bridgestone argued that the mark “KINGSTONE” is so similar to the its trade marks “BRIDGESTONE” and “FIRESTONE” as to be identical to the latter and Sichuan’s trade mark would be likely to deceive and or cause confusion among the members of the public.
“The mark in consideration in these opposition proceedings is a word mark, “DAWA MOJA STRONG”. The mark is comprised of two Kiswahili words which translate to “MEDICINE” and “ONE” respectively, in the English language. The third element of the mark is the word “STRONG”. This means that considered as a whole, the mark would literary (sic) be translated to mean “ONE STRONG MEDICINE”. It is my view that when such a term is sought to be registered and used as a trade mark for pharmaceutical products, the application must fail because the term does not qualify as a trade mark under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act.” – Assistant Trademark Registrar, Ruling in DAWA MOJA STRONG Trade Mark Opposition.
This blogger has received a copy of a recent trade mark ruling by the Registrar of Trade Marks referenced as In Re TMA No. 75546 “DAWA MOJA STRONG”, Opposition By Dawa Ltd and Sonal Holdings Ltd., 14th April 2015. A copy of the ruling is available here.