Kenya’s Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act No. 33 of 2016 Comes into Force

uhuru-kenyatta-president-pscu-signs-tk-tces-bill-august-2016-kenya-2

On 31 August 2016, President Uhuru Kenyatta (pictured above) assented to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Bill, No.48 of 2015. The Bill was published in Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 154 on 7 September 2016 cited as the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, No. 33 of 2016. The date of commencement of the Act is 21 September 2016, which means the Act is now in force. A copy of the Act is available here.

In previous blogposts here, we have tracked the development of this law aimed at creating an appropriate sui-generis mechanism for the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) and cultural expressions (CEs) which gives effect to Articles 11, 40 and 69(1) (c) of the Constitution. This blogpost provides an overview of the Act with special focus on the issues of concern raised previously with regard to the earlier Bill.

Continue reading

Advertisements

ARIPO Copyright Office Publishes Survey Findings on Status of African Collective Management Organizations

aripo member states map africa intellectual property regional organization copyright CMO survey

On the eve of its 40th anniversary, the Harare-based African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) has recently published the findings of a survey on collective management organisations (CMOs) conducted among its member states. A copy of the survey is available here. In the foreword, ARIPO Director General Mr. Fernando Dos Santos explains that:

“The findings [of the survey] indicate that CMOs in the ARIPO Member States are growing in numbers. It was also found that there is growth in collections of royalties and distributions. However, CMOs are also facing challenges which include insufficient or lack of awareness of copyright laws by users and the general public, users’ unwillingness to pay royalties, piracy of the copyrighted works, inadequate resources and manpower within the CMOs and inadequate availability of technologies that can be used by the CMOs.”

Continue reading

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

British American Tobacco Kenya

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.

Continue reading

Remuneration Rights vs. Exclusive Rights: IFPI, SCAPR, Kenya Copyright Board Clash over Removal of Section 30A

music recording studio

The International Federation of Musicians (FIM) reports that powerful record label umbrella body International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has written to Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) demanding the removal of Section 30A of Kenya Copyright Act. (See our previous discussions of section 30A here)

According to FIM, the criticism of section 30A by IFPI is an unacceptable “step backwards, the implication of which is that all treaties guaranteeing artists’ rights would be made devoid of any meaning (Rome Convention, WPPT, Beijing Treaty).”

Continue reading

ARIPO States Not Yet Ready for WIPO Budapest Treaty on Patents Involving Micro-organisms

image

Recently, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in collaboration with the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) held a seminar dubbed “Sub–regional seminar on the promotion and understanding of multilateral treaties in the field of patents: Paris Convention, Budapest Treaty and Patent Law Treaty (PLT)” hosted at the ARIPO Headquarters in Harare, Zimbabwe.

The focus of this blogpost is on the some of the issues arising around the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure.

As many may know, the Budapest Treaty was concluded in 1977 and has been open to States party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883). As at March 15, 2014, 79 States were party to the Treaty. Interestingly, there are only three African countries that have signed the Treaty, namely Tunisia, Morocco and South Africa – none of whom are ARIPO member states.

As many may know, the Treaty was intended to aid in disclosure requirement under patent law where the invention involves a microorganism or the use of a microorganism. Such inventions relate primarily to the food and pharmaceutical fields. Since such disclosure is not possible in writing, it can only be effected by the deposit, with a specialized institution, of a sample of the microorganism.
It is in order to eliminate the need to deposit in each country in which protection is sought, that the Treaty provides that the deposit of a microorganism with any “international depositary authority” suffices for the purposes of patent procedure before the national patent offices of all of the contracting States and before any regional patent office (if such a regional office declares that it recognizes the effects of the Treaty). The European Patent Office (EPO), the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) have made such declarations.

According to ARIPO’s press statement here, Director General Fernando dos Santos in his opening remarks “lamented the insignificant role that Africa is playing in global IP systems despite the fact that nearly every African state has enabling laws to facilitate its better placement in the global IP transactions and indicators.”
Dos Santos reportedly challenged member states to find their way into IP filings noting that according to the World Intellectual Property Indicators 2014, of the over 2 million patent lodgments made in 2013, Africa’s share was a mere 0.6% ─ with most of these 0.6% filings made in Africa emanating from the industrialized countries through the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

With that background in mind, this blogger suspects that most ARIPO member states
may not be ready to implement a Treaty such as the Budapest Treaty at present. Taking the Kenyan scenario for instance, local patent applications are very few and whilst Kenya may have no problem with the Treaty per se, it would be a cumbersome, expensive venture. For the foreseeable future, the real beneficiaries of the system under Budapest Treaty would be the developed countries since they remain ardent users of the patent system. Judging from the 3 countries that are signatories to the treaty, it is clear that capacity is a big impediment.

To highlight this issue of capacity, let us consider the “international depositary authority” provision under the Treaty. What the Treaty calls an “international depositary authority” is a scientific institution – typically a “culture collection” – which is capable of storing microorganisms. Such an institution acquires the status of “international depositary authority” through the furnishing by the contracting State in the territory of which it is located of assurances to the Director General of WIPO to the effect that the said institution complies and will continue to comply with certain requirements of the Treaty.

In this connection, it is important to note that there is no institution in Africa that has been recognised under the Treaty as a  “international depositary authority” whereas they are currently 42 such authorities in other countries worldwide including: seven in the United Kingdom, three in the Russian Federation, in the Republic of Korea, and in the United States of America, two each in Australia, China, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, and in Spain, and one each in Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands and Slovakia.

Initially Kenya proposed to sign the Treaty and had identified two depositaries i.e Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) and Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) however the main challenge seemed to be a lack of capacity in proper handling of the samples and the means to maintain the cultures or strains to the required standards.
Not to mention the increased costs and logistics involved in the coordination between the IP office and the depositaries.

Therefore this blogger reckons that Kenya and other ARIPO member states need to focus more on growing Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs) in terms of utility model applications and other connected areas of industrial property protection. Thereafter, as the innovation space grows, one expects that there would be greater demand and push from local inventors in Kenya and other ARIPO member states to join the Budapest Treaty so to enjoy it’s benefits.

Protection of Well Known Marks in Kenya

On this subject of well known marks, this blogger invites readers to listen to audio recordings of the presentations made by KIPI trade mark examiners during a workshop held in January 2014 available here. Readers may also wish to download Caroline Muchiri, Advocate’s powerpoint presentation made in February 2014 available here.

Below are my reactions (in bold) to some of the issues addressed in Caroline’s presentation

Read the full article here.

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

quail

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.