Incidental Use and Copyright Exhaustion: High Court Ruling in Nairobi Map Service v Celtel Kenya (Zain Kenya)

celtel map kenya africa

 

After 7 years in court, a judgment was recently delivered in the case of Nairobi Map Service Limited v Celtel Kenya Limited (Zain Kenya) & 2 others [2016] eKLR in which Nairobi Map sought to have the defendants namely Celtel/Zain Kenya (now Airtel Kenya), Z.K Advertising Kenya and the Sound and Picture Works company held liable for copyright infringement of a copyrighted map known as ‘Kenya Administrative Map’ which was included in the ‘Zain Coverage’ advertisement televised in August 2009.

According to the court there were 3 issues to determine namely: (1) whether the Plaintiff has copyright in the map known as ‘Kenya Administrative Map’; (2) If issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether all or any of the Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright in the said map; and (3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed, from the Defendants or any of them.

Continue reading

Advertisements

How A Typo Cost Safaricom the “OKOA STIMA” Trade Mark in Favour of Colour Planet

okoa stima safaricom colour planet trademark case

Recently, a leading newspaper published a story here stating that Safaricom Limited had obtained interlocutory orders against Colour Planet Limited stating that the latter was “forbidden from interfering with any contracts Safaricom has under the banner Okoa Stima, suggesting to any third party that Safaricom does not have the right to use the name Okoa Stima.” The rest of the story is filled with several contradictory and confusing facts regarding trade mark searches made, trade mark applications filed and trade mark registrations with respect to the Okoa Stima mark by both Safaricom and Colour Planet.

This blogpost is intended to set the record straight on the specific issue of the chronology of events at the Trade Mark Registry of Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) involving both Colour Planet and Safaricom between March 2015 and January 2016. For intellectual property (IP) practitioners, this post may also serve as a cautionary tale on the importance of care and caution when handling your clients’ matters pending before KIPI.

Continue reading

All Eyes on Standard Bank as Barclays Bank “PRESTIGE BANKING” Trade Mark Published

Prestige Banking Trade Mark Barclays Standard Bank

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.

Continue reading

Image Rights, Privacy and Related Rights in the Workplace: High Court Case of Sikuku v. Uganda Baati

Circled: Sikuku, maybe.

Circled: Sikuku, maybe.

“The persons who created and did the video shooting or who employed the person who carried out the work of shooting the photos and video is/are the authors or author of the works. The exact relationship between an author and a person having neighbouring rights has to be clear and not hazy. A photographer who films activity in a market might not require permission of everybody in the market to publish or use the works.” – Madrama J. at page 15.

This blogger has come across a recent High Court decision of Sikuku v. Uganda Baati HCCS No. 0298 of 2012 before the very able Honourable Justice Mr. Christopher Madrama, whose decisions we have previously discussed here and here. A copy of the present judgment is available here. Sikuku, a long-time employee of Uganda Baati claimed that the latter was unfairly benefiting from the use of his images in Uganda Baati advertisements presented in both photographic and audio-visual forms to the public. Sikuku sought an order for the payment of Uganda shillings 150,000,000/= as “usage fees” from Uganda Baati. Sikuku contended that his employer had infringed his rights under the Uganda Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act as well as the Constitution of Uganda. The court dismissed Sikuku’s entire case against Uganda Baati. The learned Madrama J. found that Sikuku does not qualify to have neighbouring rights as protected by the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. Further, the court found that Sikuku has not proved unlawful interference with his constitutional right of privacy under article 27 by Uganda Baati.

This blogpost discusses the Uganda High Court’s treatment of the intersecting issues of image/privacy rights, and neighbouring rights as they arose in the Sikuku case. Ultimately, this blogpost finds that this case is instructive for participants both behind and infront of the camera lens.

It is not disputed that Sikuku appears in photos used in Uganda Baati’s in-house SAFAL magazine and the Contractors Year Planner. It is also not disputed that Sikuku appears on audiovisual adverts commissioned by Uganda Baati which were broadcast on several television stations including WBS and NTV. However the court had to determine whether or not these “appearances” amounted to “performances” as defined in copyright law and by extension, whether Sikuku fell within the definition of a “performer”.

A “performer” under section 2 of the Uganda Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is defined to include an:

“actor or actress, singer, musician, dancer or other person who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.”

Madrama J. in his judgment states that Sikuku cannot be a “performer” under the Act. His reasoning is thus:-

“The evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiff [Sikuku] was going about his business when he was filmed and photographed. He was not required to pose for the photograph or for the filming though they had been given new uniforms for the occasion. He was filmed and photographed in the ordinary course of his performance as a worker. (…) From the definition under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act the Plaintiff is not an actor because he was filmed and photographed in the ordinary course of his work as an Employee of the Defendant. (…) the Plaintiff is not a performer whose action was deliberate so as to be a necessary ingredient of the works complained about and which ought to be paid in terms of performance fees (…) It is debatable whether the advertisement prominently portrays the Plaintiff’s photo or actually displays the Defendant’s products together and incidentally with the workers engaged in the work of production of the products using the machinery. The plaintiff is not at all the major or main feature of the advertisement. (…) The Plaintiff is not an artist and he was not bringing special skills so as to properly present the Defendant’s products. He was merely going about his business when he was filmed.”

On this point, this blogger concurs with the judge’s careful consideration of the definition of “performer”. Sikuku’s role in the audio-visual work cannot be likened to that of an extra in a movie or other production. While it is clear that Sikuku may fall within the category of “other person who acts, sings, delivers, declaims, plays in, interprets, or otherwise performs”, the missing part appears to be the subject matter of the “performance”. In the case of an extra, there is a script and an assigned role given to each “performer” such as “workman #1 operating heavy machine”, which would appear in the movie credits at the end of the movie.

On the issue of image/privacy rights, the court provides a useful analysis of the privacy clause in the Constitution of Uganda, which closely mirrors the privacy article in Kenya. In finding that there was no infringement of privacy rights, the court correctly reasoned as follows:-

“The court should consider whether photos of Employees taken in the course of their employment showing them at work cannot be used by the Employer for purposes of advertisement without consent or payment of consideration. The plaintiff should demonstrate that the filming or photo was taken in a private moment such us when eating or resting. Such a conclusion should be based on the terms of the contract. In the absence of the terms of any contract excluding an Employer from publishing photos and audio visual works of products including members of staff in a factory carrying out their work, the Plaintiff has no case presented before the court. As far as the rights to privacy is concerned, someone who works in a factory as contained in exhibit P1 and P2 cannot claim a right to privacy. The factory is owned by the Defendant and the Defendant can bring in people at any time to inspect the factory thereby excluding the rights to privacy.”

Judicial Review and Intellectual Property Administration: Sony Holdings Ltd v. Sony Corporation

sony holdings Trade mark advertisement

We think it is arguable whether, under rule 102 of the Trademarks Rules, the Registrar has unfettered discretion to extend time. – Court of Appeal at Nairobi.

The case of the Republic Ex-Parte Sony Holdings Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks & another [2014] eKLR (the “Sony case”) becomes one of a handful of intellectual property (IP) related cases to find its way to the Court of Appeal. It is an important case as it invites the judicial arm of government to determine whether executive arm of government, through the Registrar of Trade Marks has acted outside the law in exercising its statutory functions.

The Sony case arose way back in 2009 when Sony Holdings applied for the registration of two trademarks (a word mark, and a word device). Sony Holdings submitted the proposed trademarks for registration by way of two letters dated 18th May 2009. The Registrar of Trademarks wrote back to Sony Holdings on 8th September 2009, giving notice of refusal to register the trademarks. The Advocate’s wrote back to the Respondent asking that he reconsider his refusal. The Respondent then gave approvals for the marks to be advertised in the Industrial Property Journal. The advertisement was done on 31st May 2011 as appears above and below.

sony holdings word mark

However, on 26th January 2012, the Registrar of Trade Marks wrote to Sony Holdings, informing the latter that an extension of time had been granted to Sony Corporation to lodge a notice of opposition. Sony Holdings wrote back to the Registrar of Trade Marks on 29th February 2012 indicating its objection to the extension of time. The Registrar did not respond to the content of this last letter and instead wrote to Sony Holdings informing it that a notice of opposition had been filed on behalf of Sony Corporation, and asked Sony Holdings to file a counter statement within 42 days.

Therefore Sony Holdings’ case before the High Court was that the Registrar’s exercise of discretion in extending time to file the notice of opposition was illegal, irregular and wrongful. Warsame J. sitting in the High Court dismissed Sony Holdings’ application and held that the Registrar had not exceeded its statutory authority in extending the time for filing the notice of opposition. In this judgment, the learned judge makes two important points relating to judicial review in intellectual property administration. First and foremost, the High Court dismisses the internal exhaustion rule in administrative law which would require that an aggrieved party exhausts all avenues of recourse available under the enabling statute before approaching the courts for a review. In the present case, the court disagreed and stated that:

I am of the view that the present application is properly before the court because the Applicant [Sony Holdings] has alleged that the Respondent [the Registrar] acted in excess of his jurisdiction. An action taken in excess of jurisdiction can only be quashed by way of judicial review orders.

The second important point made by the High Court relates to the principle of legitimate expectation. This principle states that if a public body leads a person to expect that the public body will, continue to act in a way then the latter should not, without an overriding reason in the public interest, resile from that representation and unilaterally cancel the expectation of the person that the state of affairs will continue. In other words, for a legitimate expectation to arise, there must be a promise or representation that arises from the public body, that would be reasonably expected to continue. In the present case, the court explained why Sony Holdings could not rely on the principle of legitimate expectations as follows:

The fact that the trademarks had been advertised did not necessarily mean that the trademarks would as of right be registered. In fact, there was no representation to the Applicant that these marks would definitely be registered once the advertisement in the journal had been done.

Recently the Court of Appeal heard and determined an application by Sony Holdings for an order that pending the hearing and determination of the it’s appeal from the judgment of the High Court that there be a stay of opposition proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trademarks or any action under the Trademarks Act by the Registrar.
Sony Holdings argued that the substance of the appeal is the legality of the opposition proceedings before the Registrar and if the proceedings continue to conclusion then the substance of the appeal would be lost. Sony Corporation in reply argued that Sony Holdings would have a right of appeal or review to the High Court on the merits of the opposition proceedings and for that reason there would be no prejudice to Sony Holdings should the opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks proceed to conclusion.

The Court of Appeal rejected Sony Holdings’ application for stay stating that any party dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar would have recourse to the Courts.

Meanwhile, the root cause of this dispute remains the wide discretion given to the Registrar under Rule 102 in matters of extension of time. How does one establish whether such discretion has been exercised unreasonably, in bad faith or in disregard to the law?

This blogger will be keenly following the developments around this case both before the Registrar and the Court of Appeal.

Summary of the Industrial Property Act 2001

The main object of this Act is to provide for the promotion of inventive and innovative activities, to facilitate the acquisition of technology through the grant and regulation of patents, utility models, technovations and industrial designs. Section 3 of the Act establishes the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI).

KIPI is the main implementation and administration agency for industrial property in Kenya. It liaises with other national, regional and transnational intellectual property offices, patent offices and international organizations that are involved in industrial property protection. KIPI’s mandate includes: considering applications for and granting industrial property rights; screening technology transfer agreements and licences; providing to the public industrial property information for technological and economic development; and promoting inventiveness and innovativeness in Kenya.

The Act also establishes the Industrial Property Tribunal to deal with cases of infringement. Section 109 of the Act also criminalises infringement on others patents, registered utility models or industrial designs.

The application forms for patent, industrial design and utility model are available here.
The current fees payable to KIPI for patent, industrial design and utility model applications are available here.

 

Patents and Utility Models under the Industrial Property Act

hippo water roller afrigarnics limited isaiah esipisu

A patent is a legal document granted by a State that secures to the holder, for a limited period, the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented subject matter. Any new and useful process, product, composition of matter, or any improvement thereof, may be patented, if such invention meets these three requirements: (1) Novelty; (2) Inventive step i.e must not be obvious to a person of ordinary skills in that field of art, and (3) Industrial applicability.

The following are not patentable:

  • Discoveries or findings that are products or processes of nature, where mankind has not participated in their creations
  • Scientific theories and mathematical methods
  • Schemes, rules or methods of doing businesses or playing games or purely performing mental acts.
  • Methods of treatments of both human and animals by surgery or therapy as well as diagnostic methods practice thereto, except products for use thereof.
  • Inventions contrary to public order, morality, public health and safety, principles of humanity and environmental conservation

 

The steps to be followed for grant of a patent in Kenya are as follows:

8 kosgei kipi 2010

NB: Please note that the fees indicated in the diagram above may not be up-to-date, consult the link in the box above for the current fees.

Industrial Designs under the Industrial Property Act

9 kosgei kipi 2010

An industrial design refers to the ornamental or aesthetic features of a product.  In other words, it refers only to the appearance of a product and NOT the technical or functional aspects.

Any products of industry can be protected as an industrial design including: fashions, handicrafts, technical and medical instruments, watches, jewellery, household products, toys, furniture, electrical appliances, cars; architectural structures; textile designs; sports equipment; packaging; containers and “get–up” of products

The requirements for industrial design protection are: (1) Novelty;  (2) Originality i.e. independently created; and (3) Design must have “individual character” – when overall impression is evaluated against others.

The registration process for an industrial design in Kenya is as follows:

10 kosgei kipi 2010

NB: Please note that the fees indicated in the diagram above may not be up-to-date, consult the link in the box above for the current fees.