Weaves Fly in Trade Mark Fight Between Darling and Angels Hair

 

In Kenya’s cut-throat hair business, three competitors (the purveyors of hair extensions branded ‘Darling’, ‘Angels Hair’ and ‘Sistar’ respectively) have distinguished themselves through aggressive marketing and strategic litigation over their brands. In a previous blogpost here, we highlighted an interesting High Court case where the Sistar hair maker filed a trade mark infringement suit against both its rivals, Style Industries (of the ‘Darling’ fame) and Sana Industries, known for ‘Angels Hair’.

In this latest installment, we focus on the recently reported High Court ruling in Style Industries Limited v Sana Industries Co. Limited [2018] eKLR in which the Plaintiff (Style) was partially successful in its application for both injunctive relief and Anton Piller orders against the Defendant (Sana) for infringement of its ‘VIP COLLECTION’ trade mark.

Goodwill as Constitutionally Protected Property: High Court Case of Bia Tosha Distributors v Kenya Breweries, EABL, Diageo

“I am acutely aware of the far reaching consequences of my conclusive finding that purely constitutional issues and questions have been borne out of a hitherto commercial relationship and hence the court’s jurisdiction rather than agreed mode of dispute resolution. I however do not for a moment view it that the framers of our Constitution intended the rights and obligations defined in our common law, in this regard, the right to freedom of contract, to be the only ones to continue to govern  interpersonal relationships.” – Onguto, J at paragraph 101 of the ruling.

A recent well-reasoned ruling by the High Court in the case of Bia Tosha Distributors Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited & 3 others [2016] eKLR  tackled the complex question of horizontal application of the Constitution to private commercial disputes governed by contracts with private dispute resolution mechanisms. More interestingly, the court had to consider whether the amount of Kshs. 33,930,000/= paid by the Petitioner to acquire a ‘goodwill’ over certain distribution routes or areas of the Respondents’ products can be defined as ‘property’ held by the Petitioner and as such protected under Article 40 of the Constitution.

High Court Rules New Tobacco Law on Packaging, Labelling and Disclosure Does Not Violate Intellectual Property Rights

Previously, this blogger reported here that the High Court had suspended the coming into force of the Tobacco Control Regulations 2014 made by the Cabinet Secretary for Health scheduled to take effect on 1st June 2015. Recently in the case of British American Tobacco Kenya Ltd v Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & 4 others [2016] eKLR, Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi (known to many readers for her landmark decision on anti-counterfeit law and access to medicines here) delivered a judgment at the High Court dismissing claims by ‘Big Tobacco’ that their constitutional rights including intellectual property (IP) rights are being violated by the new Tobacco Regulations.

Kenafric ‘Fuma’ Footwear Denies Counterfeiting Claims by Puma

This blogger has previously blogged here and here about Kenafric’s fatal attraction to well-known trade marks, to put it mildly. The latest victim of Kenafric’s attraction is none other than Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (Puma for short). In this connection, this blogger came across a recent ruling in the case of Kenafric Industries Limited & another v Anti-Counterfeit Agency & 3 others [2015] eKLR.

In this case, Puma through its representative Paul Ramara lodged complaints at Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) against Kenafric for trade mark infringement. ACA and Ramara went to Kenafric’s premises and demanded to check the same for goods in the name of Puma a demand Mikul Shah a director at Kenafric declined to comply with due to the fact that his company had not been served with any Court order directing the said search and entry. Consequently, Shah was arrested, taken to Ruaraka Police Station and charged with the offence of obstruction and released on bond.

Recap of WIPO African Sub-Regional Workshop on New Perspectives on Copyright

This week, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) hosted the WIPO African Sub-regional Workshop on New Perspectives on Copyright organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) from 20 – 21 July 2015.

The Workshop drew Heads of Copyright Offices in the ARIPO Member States and some Observer States who took part in this crucial Workshop aimed at discussing the management of Copyright and Related Rights in the face of new challenges emanating from new digital technologies. Also in attendance were copyright officials from Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago who shared their experiences with their African colleagues.

What follows is a summary of the presentations made by the various participants at the Workshop.

International Women’s Day: Celebrating African Women Leaders in Intellectual Property

Angélique Kidjo won her 2nd Grammy Award in 2015. The world renowned Beninoise singer-songwriter is Vice President of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC). CISAC is the umbrella body for copyright societies worldwide.

Celebrated globally on 8th March, this year’s International Women’s Day highlights the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, a historic roadmap signed by 189 governments 20 years ago that sets the agenda for realizing women’s rights. The official United Nations theme for International Women’s Day 2015 is “Empowering Women – Empowering Humanity: Picture It!”

“When we unleash the power of women, we can secure the future for all” – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his message for International Women’s Day 2015.

To mark this year’s International Women’s Day (#IWD2015), this blogger has compiled a list of some of the (influential) women (leaders) in intellectual property (IP) from Kenya and throughout English-speaking Africa. The women listed below (in no particular order) are primarily drawn from IP offices, academia, non-governmental organisations and the IP legal fraternity.

Regulation of Online Video Content, Territoriality and Copyright

This month South Africa’s top comedian Trevor Noah announced that he will be joining the award-winning late-night satirical news show, “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” aired on US cable network, Comedy Central (CC). For those who would want to enjoy this Emmy and Peabody Award-winning television show on demand, there is always “Hulu”, a leading online video service. However for those accessing Hulu outside the US, you are likely to receive the following notice: “We’re sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States. For more information on Hulu’s international availability, click here.”

A similar service to Hulu called Netflix has been the subject of conversation in South Africa in a recent article here by TechCentral South Africa titled: “DStv wont sue Netflix users” then later changed to “DStv to launch Catch Up Plus”. The relevant portion of the article reads: “[DStv Digital Media CEO John] Kotsaftis says it’s not clear if it’s legal or not for South Africans to watch Netflix and similar services. What is clear, he says, is that these companies are breaking the law when they allow access to services to consumers in markets for which they haven’t purchased content distribution rights.” In this regard, many Kenyans may ask: “when you purchase a US virtual private network (VPN) to by-pass Netflix or Hulu region locks to watch shows and movies that are supposed to only be available to Americans, is that copyright infringement?” This blogpost explains why this question must be answered in the affirmative.

Read the rest of this article here.

Intellectual Property in Crafts and Visual Arts in Kenya

This month, CraftAfrika organized a forum for creators and entrepreneurs in the crafts and visual arts sectors to discuss the impact and importance of the intellectual property (IP) system. This blogpost is a review of some of the key IP issues that arose during this important forum.

In today’s digital era, the real challenge for artisans and visual artists is not just to produce and market winning new products that cater to changing consumer tastes, but also to prevent – or if unable to prevent then to effectively deal with – unfair competition or theft of their creative ideas. The intellectual property (IP) system is the best available tool for creating and maintaining exclusivity over creative and innovative output in the marketplace, albeit for a specified maximum period of time. The effective use of IP can also help artisans and visual artists to develop networks and relationships not only with end consumers, but also with all the links in the supply and demand networks.

Overview of IP

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce. Intellectual property is divided into two categories: 1) industrial property, which includes patents, trademarks, industrial designs and utility models; and 2) copyright, which includes musical works, literary works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical compositions; artistic works, such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, producers of phonograms in their recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programmes.

Different Types of IP Protection for Crafts and Visual Arts

Before a person or enterprise can take advantage of its intellectual output it has to acquire IP rights (IPRs). IPRs in the fields of industrial property need to be registered in order to be protected. In the case of copyright, registration is voluntary since IPRs under copyright subsist automatically once the work is fixed in material form. Here are the different types of IP protection for Crafts and Visual Arts, in order of priority:

1.Trademark: A brand or trademark is a sign or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing a product or service from other products or services on the market. The main task of a trademark is to individuate a product or a service – consumers are able to distinguish between different goods with different marks precisely on the basis of the marks. Unlike other types of IP, the term of protection for trademarks is not limited; they can be renewed indefinitely by the owner.
Example: SANDSTORM is a registered trademark used for hand-crafted leather items such as bags. It is registered together with a lizard symbol.

2.Copyright: Basically, copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to use the work. It protects items such as paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, architecture, instruction manuals, software, databases, technical documentation, advertisements, maps, literary works, music, films or songs. In most countries, a copyrighted work is protected for the length of the author’s life plus a minimum of another 50 years.

3.Industrial Design: An industrial design (or simply a design) is the appearance of the whole or part of a product resulting from features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation. Industrial designs, as objects of IP, can usually be protected for up to a maximum of 15 years. The fees indicated in the table above for design registration are the total fees payable to KIPI and not merely the filing fees.

Example: A new textile pattern or the unique shape of a piece of jewellery can be protected as designs.

4.Patent: A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides a new and non-obvious way of doing something, or offers a new and non-obvious technical solution to a problem. A patent provides protection for the invention to the owner of the patent for a limited period, generally 20 years.

Example: A new method of tatting, using a shuttle, that enables the tatter to use more than two colours or textures of thread has been patented.

5. Utility Model (‘Petty Patent’): A utility model is similar to a patent, but the requirements for acquiring protection are less stringent and the protection is much cheaper to obtain and to maintain. On the other hand, the term of protection offered by a utility model is shorter than a patent i.e. 10 years without the possibility of renewal. The fees indicated in the table above for utility models are the total fees payable to KIPI and not merely the filing fees.

6.Trade secrets: this is confidential business information of any nature that can be used in the operation of a business and that is sufficiently valuable and secret to afford economic advantage over others. To be protected, the owner of a trade secret must have taken reasonable steps to keep the information secret. Therefore it is advised that artisans and visual artists use Non-Disclosure, Non-Compete and Confidentiality agreements and/or clauses in all their dealings with third parties.

Examples: Glass-blowing techniques, oven processing methods for baking pottery, clay mixture preparations for ceramics, consumer profiles, advertising strategies, lists of suppliers and clients, and manufacturing processes can all be trade secrets.

Commercialising Intellectual Property Rights

IPRs represent property rights. They can be used by the IPR owner or they can be transferred to others. Artisans and visual artists who own any IPRs can sell their rights to another person. More importantly, IPRs have the particular advantage that they may be exploited simultaneously by several people. This can be done through licensing.

The word licence simply means permission – a person grants permission to another to do something. A licence agreement is a contractual agreement under which a licensor (the person who owns the IP) permits another (licensee) to use the right. It does not transfer the ownership of the IP.

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights

The main reason for acquiring IP protection is to be able to reap the benefits of the creations. IP assets can only lead to benefits when the acquired IPRs can be enforced; otherwise, infringers and counterfeiters will always take advantage of the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms to benefit from the artisan’s or visual artist’s hard work. It is often the threat of enforcement or the actual enforcement action which allows an IPR to be effectively exploited as a commercial asset.

In the recent dispute between Penny Galore and Amani Women’s Group, Amani was accused of infringing Penny Galore’s rights under both copyright and trade mark law with respect to the latter’s handmade necklace branded and marketed widely as the Kura Necklace. Penny Galore alleged that Amani had substantially copied and/or reproduced the Kura Necklace Grey and that Amani were selling this infringing work at its shops to individuals and/or independent traders. Therefore Penny demanded that Amani immediately stop all dealings with its alleged infringing necklace and that all pieces of the disputed Amani neckace must be destroyed.

In the case of Alternative Media Ltd vs Safaricom Ltd (2005) 2 KLR 253, the court found that Safaricom had infringed Alternative Media’s rights under copyright with respect to artistic works created by the latter. It was found that Safaricom had used artwork belonging to Alternative Media on its 250 Shillings Scratch Cards without Alternative Media’s authority. Therefore the court found that infringement of copyright arose not because the Safaricom’s work resembled Alternative Media’s, but because the Safaricom had copied all or a substantial part of Alternative Media’s work.

The Intellectual Property End-Game

For artisans, craft entrepreneurs and visual artists in Kenya, the IP system should be viewed as a protection and promotion tool that, if used effectively, can enhance business success.

Some important IP considerations include: identification of creative output that may be protected with IP rights, understanding the types of IP rights and protective measures best suited for particular needs and business, consideration of the costs and benefits of IP registrations, maintenance and management of IP assets, detection of IP infringements and enforcement of IP rights.

Intersections between Intellectual Property, Consumer Protection and Competition Law in Kenya

Editor’s note: This article is a commentary on the LSK CLE on Competition and Consumer Law on Feb 8, 2014 at the Hilton, Nairobi. Audio recordings of the various presentations made during the CLE have been uploaded here.

From an intellectual property (IP) perspective, the enactments of the Competition Act, 2010 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2012 have played a major role in balancing the interests of IP owners and IP users in Kenya. The Competition Act is a broad piece of legislation as it seeks to promote and safeguard competition in the economy whilst protecting consumer rights. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted with a view to consolidate various consumer protection provisions scattered in several pieces of legislation. In this regard, the 2012 Act governs the protection of the consumer and aims to prevent unfair trade practices in consumer transactions.

In this discussion of how IP intersects with consumer protection law and competition law, the point of departure is the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The rights of the various categories of IP rights holders are guaranteed under Article 11, 40 and 69 of the Constitution, whereas the rights of IP rights licensees as users are guaranteed under Article 46 of the Constitution.

However it is important to note that, under Article 24 of the Constitution, none of these rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are absolute in nature. This Article provides that a right in the Bill of Rights can be limited by law where that limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, taking into account certain factors relating to the nature, extent, importance and purpose of the limitation.

In this connection, it is submitted that the Competition and Consumer Protection Acts introduce several limitations to the rights of IP owners, discussed below.

In the Competition Act, restrictive trade practices are defined to include any agreement, decision or concerted practice which amounts to the use of an intellectual property in a manner that goes beyond the limits of legal protection. However the Act provides for the grant of exemption for certain restrictive practices in respect of intellectual property rights. This blogger wonder whether de jure monopolies such as collective management organisations would be required to apply and obtain such exemptions.

In addition, the Act defines the abuse of dominant position to include abuse of an intellectual property right. This latter point is discussed by Guserwa, SC at 4:37 in the audio recording below, labelled: “Competition Law Issues in the Legal Profession”.

With regard to the provisions on extra-territorial operation and mergers in the Act, it is important to note the use of the word “asset” which is defined in section 2 as follows:

” “asset” includes any real or personal property, whether tangible or
intangible, intellectual property, goodwill, chose in action, right, licence, cause
of action or claim and any other asset having a commercial value;”

Another important section of the Act is part VI which deals with consumer welfare. This blogger submits that these consumer welfare provisions may have the effect of limiting some of the rights enjoyed by IP owners. These provisions are further enhanced by the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore it is noteworthy that the provisions in the Competition Act relating to false or misleading representations and unconscionable conduct are covered in the provisions relating to unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act.

From an IP perspective, the consumer law provisions in these two Acts interact with IP at both international and national levels. At the international level, these consumer law provisions give effect to Kenya’s obligations under the Article 10bis of the Paris Convention. These obligations are reinforced by Article 2 of the TRIPs Agreement. At the national level, these consumer law provisions give effect to three IP legislations, namely the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Anti-Counterfeit Act. In this context, this blogger argues that the definition of “supplier” in the Consumer Protection Act is broadly defined such that it includes owners of IP rights. Therefore the obligations and duties imposed on suppliers can therefore be extended to IP owners in their normal course of trade.

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

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.