Anton Piller Orders Issued Against Kenya Broadcasting Corporation and One FM for Intellectual Property Rights Breach

IPKenya has been informed that the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) conducted raids on two broadcasting stations, namely the popular urban radio station, One FM and the national broadcaster, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) on January 31, 2014. These raids were carried out after MCSK successfully obtained Anton Piller orders in suits filed for copyright infringement.

In its application for Anton Piller orders against the two stations, MCSK’s lawyers relied on the following two grounds:

“1. The Defendant is engaged in and will continue to be engaged in unlawful broadcasting and reproduction of copyrighted musical works falling within the Plaintiff’s repertoire. Therefore this application seeks to enable the Plaintiff to take inventory and seize digital database(s) and libraries of musical works, related records and documents in the premises of the Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff has a well-founded apprehension that infringing copies of fixations of copyrighted musical works and related materials in possession of the Defendant will be hidden, disappear or will not be available at the time of the hearing unless this matter is heard as a matter of urgency and the orders sought granted.”

In the case of KBC, MCSK alleges that the national broadcaster owes over KES 3,000,000 in royalty arrears since 2012. This figure encompasses the controlled music content in KBC’s television station Channel One as well as its radio station. However, according to MCSK, the case of One FM illustrates the most flagrant infringement of copyright as the radio station has never taken out a broadcasting license from MCSK despite being in operation for several years. One FM’s royalty arrears are estimated to be well over KES 4,000,000.

On hearing the application by MCSK, the Court sitting at Milimani ordered that an order be issued under section 37 of the Copyright Act allowing MCSK by itself, its servants, employees or agents to access or enter the offices or premises of the Defendnat to observe and take inventory of all musical works the infringing stations broadcast.

A copy of the court order obtained against KBC can be viewed below. A similar order was issued against One FM:

KBC COURT ORDER

In a recent press statement, the Chief Executive at MCSK states:

“MCSK has over the past years been negotiating with some of the defaulting broadcasters and it was after lengthy negotiations where ONE FM, KBC and others in the pipeline, failed, refused and / or neglected to comply with the legal requirement for taking of broadcasting license from MCSK. There are several other broadcasting stations that have been lined up for Court action if they do not acquire the MCSK license such as MEDIA MAX LTD, SOUND ASIA.

MCSK shall be seeking a permanent injunction to restrain both ONE FM and KBC from broadcasting any and all musical works in KENYA since MCSK controls both local and international works. This could then mean that both ONE FM and KBC will be off air when the permanent injunction is granted.

It really would be a shame since the two media houses have positioned themselves as promoting local music yet they are not paying royalties. The local musicians who they seek to promote cannot at all benefit since no monies are paid to them by MCSK since no royalties are paid by the said media houses.”

Comment:

The recent Annual Global Economic Survey of Authors’ Society Royalty Collections by International Confederation of Authors and Composers Societies (CISAC) reveals that 7.8 Billion Euros was collected worldwide. 75% of these collections were from public performance royalties, which is predominantly made up of collections from broadcasters. Within the CISAC African region, MCSK is ranked in the top 3 highest royalty earners despite broadcasters in Kenya being among the lowest royalty payers in proportion to their music usage. It is estimated that MCSK stands to collect over KES 110,000,000 in royalty arrears from television and radio broadcasters spread throughout the country.

Current statistics from the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) indicate that there are over 100 licensed FM frequencies and over 15 TV frequencies therefore MCSK ought to be collecting about KES 52,000,000 annually in broadcasting royalties alone!

This situation will become even more interesting as Kenya expects a sharp rise in broadcasters once digital migration finally receives the green light from the Court of Appeal.

The Madrid Trade Marks Registration System From A Kenyan Perspective

quail-advanced-regular-strength

Editor’s note: For more on the Quail farming craze in Kenya, see here.

As many are aware, the system of international registration of trademarks facilitates the obtaining of protection for marks (trademarks and service marks) and since an international registration is equivalent to a bundle of national registrations, the subsequent management of that protection is made much easier. During KIPI‘s two-day Trade Marks Law and Practice Training Course (featured here), Sudi Wandabusi, this blogger’s friend and trademarks examiner at KIPI devised a great practical scenario on the international registration of trademarks.

For purposes of the scenario, a local manufacturer, Isindu Financial Limited is the owner of the trade mark “Quail Advanced Strength” (TM No. 95229) registered at KIPI on 07-07-2013. Isindu now instructs IPKenya to advise on how its trade mark can be protected in the following territories: Zambia, Italy, U.S.A, Japan and Ireland, where its products are already being marketed and sold by authorised distributors.

Why use the Madrid System?

Since Isindu’s trade mark is present in countries outside Africa, the Madrid System is the obvious choice for registration. This system makes it possible for owners to obtain and maintain registration in a number of countries through a simple and cost effective procedure. Therefore Isindu only needs to file one international application, in one language, and pay one fee, in one currency – no translation, currency exchange, legal fee costs.

Is Kenya a member of the Madrid System?

Kenya joined the Madrid Union in 1998. It brought into force both the Agreement and the Protocol on June 26 1998.
The system is administered by the International Bureau of WIPO. There are a total of 92 contracting parties to the Madrid Union. A full list of members can be found here.

Is Isindu eligible to use the system?

Any natural person or a legal entity which has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in, or is domiciled in, or is a national of, a country which is party to the Madrid Agreement or the Madrid Protocol can use the system.

Therefore Isindu’s entitlement to file the international registration would be that it has a a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of the Kenya.

Can Isindu claim priority?

From the scenario above, it is stated that TM No. 95229 was registered at KIPI on 07-07-2013. An applicant can claim priority
when filing within six months of the date of an earlier filing.
Therefore, Isindu is still within time as at the date of this blogpost and can claim priority.

How much does it cost?

The international registration fees payable to the International Bureau are available online here. This page also has a ‘fee calculator’ which is very helpful in establishing exactly how much is to be paid. The standard fee is CHF 903 for coloured marks and CHF 653 for black and white with a complementary fee of CHF 100. In addition, there is a handling fee of KES 1000 or USD 13 payable to KIPI.

How do the applicants or agents interact with the Bureau?

Several online services have been introduced by the International Bureau. They enable faster, easier communication between the applicant/agent and the bureau, namely:

1) Madrid Goods & Services Manager is a nifty tool that assists TM applicants/agents in compiling their lists of goods and services to file national and international applications. It is available in several languages and helps avoid irregularities in filing. The tool is indispensable as it enables one see which terms are acceptable by International Bureau and different designated contracting parties

2) Madrid Real–time Status (MRS) is a stand-alone tool that provides the status in real time of trademark documents being processed by WIPO. It enables applicant/agent to see what’s happening to their request at any point in time.

3) Madrid Electronic Alert (MEA) is a free ‘watch service’ that informs anyone interested in monitoring registration status of international marks. It is a subscription-based daily e-mail alert system that alerts when changes are recorded in the International TM register.

4) Madrid Portfolio Manager (MPM) is a web service that allows holder of international registrations and there reps access their international trademark portfolios. It comes in handy when submitting new requests for recordal in WIPO international TM Registry.

Comments:

This blogger notes that despite the fact that Kenya is signatory to the Madrid Union, other neighbouring countries within the East African Community (EAC) are not members, with the exception of Rwanda. Within the African continent, less that 11 countries are members of the Madrid system. It has been argued that the reason for the low number of signatories is that the Madrid system is not attractive to African states. It is indeed noteworthy that the larger economies in Africa are not members of Madrid, including South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria. The strongest resistance has come from trade mark practitioners who have lobbied against this system arguing that they stand to lose revenue (agent fees) under the Madrid system.

In contrast, the national trade marks office, KIPI, would prefer the Madrid System as it provides an extra source of revenue. The 35% revenue sharing provision under Madrid almost guarantees the member states an extra added income of CHF 10, 000 and this sum could be higher depending on the designation. KIPI receives an average of CHF 300,000 annually through the Madrid System, whereas a country such as Botswana receives an average of CHF 500,000 annually.

For information on the Madrid System, check out the WIPO website here and WIPO also has a database of all trade marks registered under the Madrid System available here.

 

 

Patent Litigation in Kenya: Lessons from the Sanitam Services East Africa Cases

imgf0001

UPDATE: The Star Newspaper has confirmed the invalidation of Sanitam’s patent no AP 773 in an article published here.

“The [matter] before us focuses on a branch of law which has scanty litigation and therefore minimal jurisprudential corpus in this country, but which has exploded on the world stage since the end of the 19th Century when the international community formed two international unions to promote it – Intellectual Property” – Court of Appeal in Sanitam Services East Africa Limited v Rentokil Limited 2006

IPKenya’s friend and the Chief Patent Examiner at KIPI informs us that the Industrial Property Tribunal has recently made a ruling revoking patent no AP 773 granted to Sanitam Services with respect to is sanitary bin. This brings to conclusion a long and arduous battle fought by Sanitam against several manufacturers since the late 90s to protect its sanitary bin invention.

This blogpost chronicles the various court cases brought by Sanitam both nationally and regionally to assert its patent rights. It is argued that Sanitam has made an enormous contribution to advancing intellectual property law jurisprudence and raising pertinent issues in the area of patent prosecution and litigation.

In 1997, Sanitam alleges that it designed and invented a foot-operated litter/sanitary disposal bin for use in the hygienic storage and disposal of sanitary towels, tampons, surgical dressings, serviettes and other waste material. One of the novel features of the sanitary bin invention claimed by Sanitam is that it has a flap opening to receive the waste and covering the contents inside so that whoever is operating it cannot see the contents inside even when using it and also the odour is minimized by the invention. This invention titled “Foot Operated Sanitary/Litter Bin” (ARIPO patent No AP 773) was granted and issued in October 1999 by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO).

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v. Anipest Kenya Ltd & Anor Civil Case No. 1898 of 2000, the late Justice Peter John Smithson Hewett sitting in the High Court dismissed a suit filed by Sanitam seeking an injunction to prevent Anipest from carrying out any acts exclusively granted to an owner of a patent under section 36 of the Industrial Property Act of 1989 (now repealed). PJS Hewett’s ruling dated March 2001 is significant as it addresses a major shortcoming in the operationalisation of the repealed Industrial Property Act, namely the absence of the Industrial Property Tribunal over 10 years after the Act came into effect. More significantly, this ruling offers the first critical analysis of Sanitam’s novelty claims in the sanitary bin invention.

The learned judge, reviews the abstract of Sanitam’s abstract and states:

“Assuming as I do, that the ARIPO rules of patentability are the same as or very similar to those of Kenya, I return to the abstract to see what it tells me particularly about novelty.
“A foot operated litter/sanitary disposal bin comprising a container (1)[”:] nothing novel there;
“closeable by a cover (2)”: nothing novel there either:
a disposal lid(3)”-still nothing novel:
“at the top, with the disposal lid being displaceable by a foot operated pedal (4)”: still nothing novel:
“and a lift lever (5)…” nothing novel,
“to move between open and closed positions. The bin is defined such that the user cannot see the contents of the container, waste scavengers cannot have access to the contents, emission of unpleasant odour is reduced and the contents cannot spill out if the bin is overturned.”
I only have to look at this matter prima facie. Are all these attributes prima facie novel. Prima facie they seem to be to me on evidence many many years old: certainly they do not seem to me to be prima facie novel-which is all I have to consider.”

This blogger submits that this finding by the learned judge paved the way for other litigants and manufacturers to question the validity of AP 773 which has now finally culminated in the revocation of the patent by the Industrial Property Tribunal.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd & Anor Civil Suit No. 58 of 1999, Sanitam moved to the High Court orders of permanent injunction to restrain Rentokil Ltd and Kentainers Ltd from manufacturing, selling and distributing the sanitary bins which infringed on its patent. Rentokil and Kentainers contended that they were already manufacturing the product before the plaintiff had obtained a patent over the invention. Therefore they argued that Sanitam could not claim exclusive rights over the product.

In Justice Onyango Otieno’s ruling delivered in May 2002, the court dismissed the Sanitam’s suit holding that it failed to prove that it had obtained a patent over its foot operated sanitary bin. In addition, Sanitam was already distributing its product 2 years prior to the registration of the patent. Therefore Rentokil and Kentainers had not infringed Sanitam’s rights by creating a similar product and obtain a market for it.

This case is significant for at least three main reasons. First and foremost, the court upheld patents granted by ARIPO as valid and enforceable within Kenya pursuant to the latter’s obligations under the ARIPO Protocol.

Secondly, although the court made several obiter dicta remarks regarding the novelty of Sanitam’s bin invention, the court ultimately held that Courts of law must defer to the National Patent Office KIPI and the Regional Patent Office ARIPO on questions pertaining to the patentability of any invention in dispute. According to the court, KIPI and ARIPO are the bodies with the technical know-how to investigate the patentability or otherwise of inventions and that in the present case, one of the two had presumably investigated the invention and found it fit to grant a patent for it. Therefore whoever challenges the grant of any patent must do so before these institutions and not in court.

Finally, the court made an important finding on the burden of proof in matters relating to infringement of industrial property, particularly where the industrial property in question is unregistered. In the case of Sanitam, the court found that since there was no patent in existence at the time a similar bin to Sanitam’s was produced, Sanitam could not claim patent infringement.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2004, Sanitam moved to the highest court in the land (at the time), the Court of Appeal, seeking for the Court to reverse the above decision of the lower court (High Court) in favour of Rentokil. Sanitam’s appeal against the High Court Decision was partially successful as the Court of Appeal granted Sanitam an injunction for the lifetime of the disputed patent AP 773 with effect from 16th December 1999. However the Court of Appeal did not award Sanitam any damages thereby concurring with the High Court’s determination that Sanitam had not discharged the onus of proof.

In 2008, ARIPO published an entry in its Journal to the effect that Sanitam’s patent AP 773 had lapsed for failure to pay annual fees. Soon thereafter, Sanitam brought an appeal against the decision of the ARIPO Patent Office removing its patent from the Register due to non-payment of annual maintenance fees. It was argued that maintenance fees were consistently late since the patent was granted in 1999. The ARIPO Appeal Board concluded that both parties were to blame for the delays in the payments; the Office had failed to send reminders, which it is required to do under the Harare Protocol. Therefore the Office was urged to strictly observe the provisions of the Protocol particularly those pertaining to time limits, information delivery and processing procedures.

Consequently, the Appeal Board ordered the patent be reinstated in respect of the designated states, including Kenya and Uganda.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Bins Nairobi Services Ltd Civil Suit No. 597 of 2007, Sanitam successfully moved the High Court for orders of injunction against Bins restraining the latter from a host of acts alleged to be infringing on Sanitam’s patent AP 773.

The issue for determination by the court was found to be whether Sanitam had established a case to entitle the court to grant the orders of injunction sought. In making this finding, the court reaffirms the earlier position of the High Court in the Rentokil case that the court is not the right institution to question the patentability of any invention in dispute and is bound to respect a patent duly issued by KIPI and/or ARIPO.

Therefore with respect to Sanitam’s onus of proof, the court found that the latter had proved that it had a valid patent ARIPO Patent no. AP 773, which was infringed by Bins through the acts of offering for sale or hire of foot-operated sanitary bins without Sanitam’s authorisation.

In Rentokil Initial Kenya Ltd v Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd Civil Suit No. 702 of 2008, Sanitam successfully defended a suit filed by Rentokil seeking that the former be restrained from threatening, intimidating, harassing, embarassing and confusing Rentokil’s clients and customers over sanitary bins it provides.

Rentokil moved to the High Court after Sanitam wrote letters to the former’s clients warning them to stop using its sanitary bins, which Sanitam considered an infringement of its patent AP 773. Rentokil’s line of reasoning was that it had developed a new bin by changing certain features to distinguish it from Sanitam’s bin registered as AP 773. Therefore Rentokil claimed that by writing letters to its clients, Sanitam was seeking to enforce a patent over a completely different bin.

Sanitam’s defence was simply to focus on its granted patent and prove to the court that Rentokil’s bin was similar to its AP 773. To this end, Sanitam presented an expert report to substantiate that the two bins were similar and that the functionality of Rentokil’s bin was same as that covered under patent AP773.

It is argued that if Rentokil had focussed on Sanitam’s threatening letters rather the differences between its bins and Sanitam’s patent, Rentokil may have been successful with its application for injunction at the Industrial Property Tribunal under section 108 of the Industrial Property Act. This section reads:
“108. (1) Any person threatened with infringement proceedings who can prove that the acts performed or to be performed by him do not constitute infringement of the patent or the registered utility model or industrial design may request the Tribunal to grant an injunction to prohibit such threats and to award damages for financial loss resulting from the threats.”

All in all, this case is instructive to all litigants in industrial property matters to purse their matters with the Industrial Property Tribunal rather than with the High Court, in the first instance.

In Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd v Sanitam Services EA Ltd [2009], the Industrial Property Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear applications to revoke patents granted by ARIPO. Sanitam challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a preliminary objection stating that section 59 of the Industrial Property Act only incorporates patents granted by ARIPO in relation to their effect in Kenya and that other issues such as revocation and not expressly contemplated in the section.

The section reads as follows:

“59. A patent, in respect of which Kenya is a designated state, granted by ARIPO by virtue of the ARIPO Protocol shall have the same effect in Kenya as a patent granted under this Act except where the Managing Director communicates to ARIPO, in respect of the application thereof, a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol that if a patent is granted by ARIPO, that patent shall have no effect in Kenya.”

Therefore the main issue between the parties was the meaning of the word “effect” in the above section. Sanitam successfully convinced the Tribunal that “effect” simply means “the powers conferred to a right holder by the patent in Kenya”, therefore the only matters the Tribunal can hear related to infringement and compulsory licensing.

This decision by the Industrial Property Tribunal was reversed by the High Court in an ex parte judicial review application heard and determined by Justice Musinga on December 1, 2010. Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd obtained an order to compel the Tribunal to reinstate, hear and determine an application for revocation of ARIPO patent AP 773 filed by Chemserve in 2008.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Tamia Ltd Petition No. 305 of 2012, Sanitam sought reliefs from the court to have Tamia prevented from violating its IP rights over the invention patent no. AP773, including the destruction of all infringing bins in Tamia’s possession. Justice Majanja’s ruling sheds crucial light on the state’s obligations under the Constitution with regards to intellectual property rights under Articles 11 and 40.

The learned judge rightly dismissed Sanitam’s petition with two well-reasoned findings: firstly, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the State (in this case, KIPI and/or the Industrial Property Tribunal) had failed to honour its obligations under the Constitution. Secondly, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to invoke Article 22 of the Constitution to enforce IP rights since these are “ordinary rights” that can be enforced through the legal mechanisms provided by statute law (in this case the Industrial Property Act).

In Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd v Sanitam Services EA Ltd [2013], the Industrial Property Tribunal rejected Chemserve’s request for the invalidation of Sanitam’s patent no AP 773.
This case is significant as the Tribunal makes several findings on the time period and burden of proof requirements when requesting revocation of a patent.

With regard to the time period requirement to revoke a patent, the Tribunal held that the legislative intent behind section 103 was to prevent a situation where a party becomes aware of a patent, then “literally sits on the right to revoke it until a later date for commercial convenience in the form of damages and accounts for profits”. The Tribunal also noted that Chemserve had failed to file for an extension of time under Rule 33 at the time it filed the request for revocation.

Even if Chemserve had filed its request in a timely manner, the Tribunal held that it had failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the patent was invalid. Chemserve argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step and formed part of prior art however it chose not to produce any evidence other than the affidavit and statement by its General Manager!

We are back full circle to 2014, where a recent report indicates that the Industrial Property Tribunal in a ruling made on 21 January 2014 has revoked patent no. AP 773. This blogger will examine this ruling once it is made available to the public.

All in all, it is beyond dispute that the long list of Sanitam cases presented above have in one way or another shaped the landscape of intellectual property litigation in Kenya and in Africa.

Copyright Licensing Requires Salesmanship: Lessons from the Banned “Wolf of Wall Street”

The-Wolf-of-Wall-Street-KFCB-Facebook-page1

One of the most talked about stories in the month of January was the decision by the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) to ban the sale, exhibition and distribution of the critically acclaimed Hollywood film “The Wolf of Wall Street”.

KFCB claims that the film was “restricted” due to elements that include nudity, sex, alcohol, drugs and profanity found in almost every scene of the 3-hour long motion picture which chronicles the title character’s (Jordan Belfort’s) pursuit of the American Dream.

This blogger has watched the banned film and believes that it is a must-watch for all those involved in the sale/assignment and/or licensing of content. In particular, this blogger recommends several short clips from the movie where the lead character demonstrates the art and skill of making a sale.

In the above scene, Jordan Belfort is trying to turn a group of inexperienced, undisciplined misfits into Wall Street stock brokers. In order to illustrate to the basic fundamentals of making a sale, Belfort pulls out a pen and thrusts it in their faces, with the instruction: “Sell me this pen.” After one member of his team declines, another member of his team grabs the pen from him and states:

“Do me a favour and write your name on that piece of paper, there.”

When Belfort looks around for something to write with, the future salesman replies:

“Oh, you don’t have a pen anymore. Supply and demand, bro.”

This scene illustrates a fundamental point for all salespeople: Until a need is recognized, it simply doesn’t matter how great your product or service is. Therefore, there are essentially three parts to any sale: identifying the need, creating urgency and applying the need and urgency to the sale. In short, the role of the salesperson is to help the client reconnect with his/her needs and the urgency to act upon them.

In the case of content, the license is the most common sale because it allows users to enjoy certain rights in the content without transferring ownership in the content. In this connection, this blogger has in mind the four collective management organisations (CMOs) currently in operation within Kenya, namely the Reproduction Rights Society of Kenya (KOPIKEN)Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP), Performers’ Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK) and Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK). Each of these CMOs is in the business of selling licenses to users throughout Kenya with respect to the rights holders in the various categories of works they control. From the CMOs’ perspective, the ends justify the means when it comes to licensing users of copyright works: an increase in licenses issued means an increase in royalties distributable to copyright owners. Therefore licensing staff employ various tactics to create awareness on copyright law while emphasising the need for them to take out licenses for commercial exploitation of copyright works.

A common challenge among the CMOs is increasing the number of licenses issued while at the same time reducing their administrative (operational) costs. One possible solution is tele-licensing whereby licensing staff spend the majority of their time on the phone with potential licensees countrywide. The trick behind tele-licensing is to persuade a commercial user that it requires a copyright license to continue or commence its operations and making arrangements with the user for the CMO to dispatch a licensing staff to deliver an invoice and collect the license payments.

Once again, Jordan Belfort illustrates how tele-licensing could be done in the clip below where he sells penny stocks worth $40,000 in a non-existent company.

In the Kenyan context, a higher degree of salesmanship may be required than that displayed by Belfort in the above clip due to the ignorance of copyright law among a large portion of potential content users. In fact, some licensing staff argue that in some cases, unless they physically visit business premises in the company of uniformed police officers, content users will not take out copyright licenses. However, this blogger argues that despite the low levels of awareness among copyright users, there is still an important need for sales training among the licensing staff of all the CMOs to ensure that they understand the content licenses they are selling and how to create the need and urgency among content users to take out the licenses.

 

In the Kenyan context, a higher degree of salesmanship may be required than that displayed by Belfort in the above clip due to the ignorance of copyright law among a large portion of potential content users. In fact, some licensing staff argue that in some cases, unless they physically visit business premises in the company of uniformed police officers, content users will not take out copyright licenses. However, this blogger argues that despite the low levels of awareness among copyright users, there is still an important need for sales training among the licensing staff of all the CMOs to ensure that they understand the content licenses they are selling and how to create the need and urgency among content users to take out the licenses.

#PharmaGate: South Africa’s Push for Patent Law Reforms Exposes Both Government and Drug Companies

The Mail and Guardian (M&G) newspaper in South Africa published a story titled: “Motsoaledi: Big pharma’s ‘satanic’ plot is genocide” where it is reported that Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi is livid about a pharmaceutical company campaign he says will restrict access to crucial drugs. This plan which was leaked to the press is now at the heart of the so-called #PharmaGate scandal which has received widespread condemnation.

All in all, this blogger submits that #PharmaGate exposes the South Africa government’s criticized track record with regard to implementation of existing laws relating to access to medicines. In addition, the Trade and Industry’s Ministry unsatisfactory drafting of the DNIPP is exposed once more. Therefore the Health Minister’s latest sensationalist remarks reported by the M&G appear to be intend to deflect attention from the above issues of poor implementation and drafting by the Executive branch. As for the drug companies, #PharmaGate only exposes the capitalist and pro-intellectual property (IP) ownership stance of Big Pharma, aptly captured in the critically acclaimed documentary, “Fire in The Blood”, whose trailer is featured above.

Read the full story here.

Reminder: Training Course on Trade Mark Law and Practice, 30 – 31 January 2014

Dear Readers,

KIPI has organised a two day training workshop on Trade Mark Law and Practice in Kenya on the 30th and 31st of January in Nairobi. Although the venue is yet to be confirmed, the participation fee for the workshop is KES 25,000, which covers lunch, teas, training materials and a certificate of attendance for participants.

The training course is quite elaborate and includes the following topics:

Overview of KIPI – History, Mandate
Definition, history, function and economics of Trade Marks
Nature and Types of Trade Marks
Registration of Trade Marks
Filing and Prosecuting Trade Mark Applications
Examination of Trade Marks
Opposition and Expungement Proceedings under Trade Mark Law
Management of Trade Marks
International Protection of Trade Marks

For those who are interested in attending this training course, the registration form and programme are available online here.

Them Mushrooms Band Awarded 3 Million Shillings in Copyright Suit Against Royal Media Services

The judgment in John Katana Harrison v. Royal Media Services Ltd 6161 of 2009 sets an important precedent in the area of copyright law in Kenya. It is trite law that the right to authorize the inclusion of any musical works in an audio-visual work or a broadcast, which is known as a synchronization right, can only be authorised/licensed by the respective foreign or local copyright owners.

In reality, this blogger has observed with alot of concern that there are a number of production studios, broadcasters, marketing and advertising companies in Kenya that include musical works in their productions. The most common examples are the Wedding Shows that are aired on local television networks. These shows include a whole repertoire of well-known local and foreign musical works from various genres. Following the judgment in the Katana case, this blogger would advise all parties concerned in the synchronisation of musical works to ensure that express consent has been duly obtained and where necessary, the desired license agreements are in place.

Read the full article here