- Professor Calestous Juma Memorial Lecture: Public Policy Options for Science and Technology in Africa [Hashtag]
- CBD and ITPGRFA commit to enhanced cooperation on access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources [Official]
- Global Innovation Divide: Can Investment In Innovation Bridge The Gap? [IPW]
- Kenya is seizing the opportunity to protect individuals and their data [Privacy International]
- Tobacco Plain Packaging: An oncoming trademark dispute in South Africa? [UCT IP Unit]
- SAMPRA takes on SABC, IMPRA over needletime payout [MiA]
- Power, Profit and Sport: The Real Legacy of the Football World Cup [Nakueira]
- PAIPO – Concerns From A Brand Holder’s Perspective [africadotcom]
- South Africa: Software Developers Pasop/Beware/Qaphela/Hlokomela [A+ Bunch of Lawyers]
- Universal Music Launches Nigerian Division [Variety]
- Big Pharma and Predatory Pricing of Birth Control [Bhekisisa]
- Innovation Prize for Africa 2018: Investing in Inclusive Innovation Ecosystems [ICYMI]
For more news stories and developments, please check out #ipkenya on twitter and feel free to share any other intellectual property-related items that you may come across.
Have a great week-end!
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  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.
The recently reported High Court case of Evans Gikunda v. Patrick Quarcoo & Two Others  was born out of a business deal gone bad. At the heart of this dispute is a music application (app) that the plaintiff (Gikunda) claims to have conceptualised, designed and developed between 2012 and 2016. However Gikunda joined the employ of the 2nd Defendant (Radio Africa Group Limited) in 2013 where the 1st Defendant (Quarcoo), the Chief Executive at Radio Africa, ‘persuaded Gikunda to partner with him to ensure that the product gets to market’.
According to Gikunda, Quarcoo proposed that that once Radio Africa’s Board of Directors sanctioned its participation in his app, they would share out the ownership of the app as follows: Radio Africa – 40%; Gikunda- 30%; Quarcoo- 20%; and the remaining 10% to a strategic partner. However, in mid-2016, Gikunda resigned from Radio Africa after which he alleges that Quarcoo and Radio Africa sold the app, without his knowledge, to the 3rd Defendant (Safaricom).
The raison d’etre of the collective administration or collective management system in copyright law is to bridge the gap between rights holders and users of copyright works. So, what happens when collecting societies, or as they are commonly called collective management organisations (CMOs), fail to carry out this core function and instead become poster children for corruption, mismanagement, lack of transparency, and abuse of power?
Back in 2013, Jonathan Band and Brandon Butler published an insightful article titled ‘Some Cautionary Tales About Collective Licensing’ which exposed the dark side of CMOs around the world. This blogger was pleased that some of our work in the context of CMOs in Kenya was featured in the article, specifically the on-going wrangles between Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) and literally everyone else including the copyright regulator, copyright owners, copyright users and even other Kenyan CMOs in the music industry.
In a recent media report here, the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge in Rwanda has ruled that it will not proceed with a case filed by Innscor International accusing two local companies Chicken Inn Limited and Pizza Inn Limited of trademark infringement in Rwanda. The basis of this ruling was reportedly that Innscor had not demonstrated to the court that it had “legal status according to the law governing registered entities in Rwanda”. Technicalities aside, it is clear that once Innscor produces its certificate of incorporation in court, this case would proceed to consider the merits of Innscor’s claim (as illustrated by the picture above), namely that registration of a name as a company name by entity A should not trump any rights in such a name acquired previously by entity B through trade mark law.
Maurice Okoth, former MCSK CEO (left) with his lawyer at the High Court for the delivery of the judgment.
Recently, the High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Republic v. The Director of Public Prosecutions and 4 Others Ex Parte Shamilla Kiptoo and 2 Others HCMA 510 of 2015 (Consolidated) in which the court granted the orders of certiorari and prohibition sought by the Applicants namely Maurice Okoth, Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), James Maweu Mutisya, former MCSK Board Director, Lillian Njoki Thuo, MCSK Management Accountant, Peter Kisala Enyenze, MCSK Regional Manager and Shamilla Kiptoo, Nasratech Limited Managing Director (and Okoth’s wife).
The order of Certiorari granted by the court quashes the decision, declaration and directive of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Directorate of Criminal Investigations (CID), Inspector General of Police (IG), Chief Magistrate’s Court and the Attorney General (collectively referred to as the Respondents) to prefer criminal charges against the Applicants based on the facts contained in the Charge Sheet dated 18th November 2015 in Criminal Case No. 1904 of 2015 – Republic v. Dan Maurice Mwande Okoth & 6 others. The order of Prohibition granted by the court directed to the Respondents prohibits the prosecution of the Applicants based on the facts contained in the Charge Sheet dated 18th November 2015 in Criminal Case No. 1904 of 2015 – Republic versus Dan Maurice Mwande Okoth & 6 others. Finally, the court ordered the costs of the application to be borne by the DPP, CID and IG.
“We wish to underscore the importance of fostering creativity through respect and protection of intellectual property rights of others. A nation cannot be built on disregard for originality and promotion of copy cats.” – Excerpt from a press statement by Transcend Media Group.
This blogger has come across the recent case of Transcend Media Group Limited v. Saracen Media Limited & 2 Ors Civil Case No. 3644 of 2016 in which Senior Magistrate E.K Usui has granted temporary injunctive orders sought by Transcend, the applicant against Saracen and the two other respondents. The court granted Anton Piller orders allowing Transcend to enter the premises of the respondents to preserve, seize, collect and keep machines, data, documents and storage material relating to Transcend’s copyright work under the supervision of Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) officers. In addition, the respondents have been restrained by the court from any further infringement, alienation, distribution and storage of Transcend’s copyright work pending hearing of the suit.
According to a Business Daily report here, the genesis of this copyright dispute is a Sh208 million tender by Safaricom seeking to procure the services of an advertising agency to handle the mobile network operator’s youth segment brand communication which is now called BLAZE. Transcend submitted its strategy proposal and creative body of works to Safaricom but lost the bid to Saracen. Transcend alleges that Safaricom awarded the business to Saracen and a Company (Fieldstone Helms Limited) owned by former Transcend staff who were involved in Transcend’s bid including the team leader. As a result, Transcend claims that Fieldstone Helms is now “illegally implementing” Transcend’s intellectual property (IP).