This week, constitutional lawyer Wachira Maina took to his facebook page to express his outrage that his work had been plagiarised by a senior lawyer and professor of law, PLO Lumumba. He begin his lengthy post on social media as follows:
“I am aghast. Prof. Lumumba has gone ahead and blatantly plagiarised my April 20th 2013 article on the Presidential Election and re-published it with the grandiloquent title “From Jurisprudence To Poliprudence: The Kenyan Presidential Election Petition, 2013” in the current issue of the Law Society of Kenya Journal.”
In the comments section, Maina discloses that he has already retained legal representation and that his counsel has written to Lumumba over the issue. For intellectual property (IP) enthusiasts, this blogger reckons that if this dispute ends up before the courts, there will be a number of interesting copyright law questions to be addressed.
As readers may know, a government taskforce had earlier recommended the merger of the three intellectual property (IP) offices dealing with copyright, industrial property and anti-counterfeit matters. The implementation of these recommendations appears to have stalled with no progress made to-date. In addition to the IP offices, there is also the matter of the various IP dispute resolution bodies created under the various IP laws: the Industrial Property Act establishes the Industrial Property Tribunal, the Copyright Act establishes the Competent Authority (akin to a Copyright Tribunal), the Anti-Counterfeit Act establishes the Anti-Counterfeit Agency and the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act establishes the Seeds and Plant Tribunal.
Recently, the Judiciary Working Committee on Transition and Restructuring of Tribunals developed a Draft Tribunal Bill 2015 to help domicile all tribunals under the Judiciary. This is an important step that could benefit IP owners and users in the quick and expert settlement of various IP-related disputes.
Most IP observers will concur that in the recent past the related rights collecting societies namely Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) and Performers’ Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK) have done exceedingly well for themselves in the area of legislative and policy reforms by leveraging on the goodwill from Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO). As a result, KAMP and PRiSK have been the major beneficiaries of consecutive amendments to the Copyright Act and Copyright Regulations in 2012, 2014 and now 2015.
Recently, the Attorney General made Copyright Amendment Regulations which expressly deal with the private copying levy or blank tape levy payable to KAMP and PRiSK under sections 28 and 30 respectively of the Copyright Act. In addition, the Attorney General has also recently approved and gazette the tariffs to be used by KAMP and PRiSK to collect royalties from various categories of users including broadcasters, telecommunications companies, service providers, business premises and vehicles both public as well as corporate.
For many in the African intellectual property (IP) space, the name Geoffrey Onyeama is all too familiar. Until last year, Onyeama was Deputy Director General at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) responsible for the Development Sector and was Africa’s candidate for the post of WIPO Director General (DG), which he lost to the incumbent DG, Dr. Francis Gurry.
Following the news of Onyeama’s cabinet nomination by newly elected Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, the former WIPO DDG underwent screening at the Senate, as seen in the video clip above.
In November 2012, the Nigerian Copyright Commission (‘the Commission’) formally launched the Reform of the Copyright System. The key objective of the reform was to re-position Nigeria’s creative industries for greater growth; strengthen their capacity to compete more effectively in the global marketplace, and also enable Nigeria to fully satisfy its obligations under the various International Copyright Instruments, which it has either ratified or indicated interest to ratify.
Since the formal launch of the Reform, the Commission has undertaken a number of activities, including review and comparative analysis and case studies of similar national reform efforts; stakeholders’ consultations; collation of commentaries; and analysis of stakeholder feedback.
Readers of this blog may be aware of the 50-year trade mark battle that has been going on between Lacoste S.A and Crocodile International PTE Ltd (“CIL”). These companies were formed about 10 years apart on opposite corners of the globe: one in France in 1933 and the other in Singapore in 1943. Historically, the battle has focused on Lacoste’s right-facing crocodile mark and CIL’s left-facing crocodile mark with trademark suits filed in numerous jurisdictions around the world.
This blogger has recently come across a judgment by the Court of Appeal in Nigeria in the long-running case of MCSN v. Details (Nig.) Ltd (CA/L/506/1999). In this case an exparte order had been obtained by MCSN against Details for unauthorized use of musical works. Details raised objections on the ground that MCSK lacked locus standi to bring the action. Details noted that since MCSN had provided evidence that it represented more than two million artistes, it was practically performing the functions of a collecting society and therefore required the approval of the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) to carry on the activities of a collecting society.
MCSN denied suing as a collecting society but rather as an owner, assignee and exclusive licensee as contemplated in Section 15 of the Act. Having considered all the evidence, inclusive of the deed of assignments executed with members of MCSN which clearly spelt out that the activities to be undertaken were those within the purview of the attributes of a collecting society, the court ruled that: “it is for the foregoing reasons that I have come to the inexorable conclusion, after deep reflection, that the plaintiff is a collecting society. Not having been registered pursuant to Section 32B(4) of the Copyright Act, it cannot be permitted to operate as such body. To do so would be tantamount to subverting not only the letter but also the spirit of the copyright laws of this country”.