High Court Affirms Role of Collecting Society in Copyright Enforcement: Case of Ruma Lodge v. MCSK

This blogger has recently come across a recent judgment of the High Court in the case of Maurice Owino Onyango v Music Copyright Society of Kenya [2015] eKLR. In this case, Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK), the sole collecting society or collective management organisation (CMO) for authors, composers and publishers of musical works, was the respondent in an appeal in the High Court challenging the decision of the Magistrates’ Court in a case filed against MCSK for malicious prosecution. Majanja J sitting in the High Court found in favour of the CMO and upheld the judgment of the lower court.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Copyright Act (Amendment) Regulations 2015: Attorney General Hikes Registration and Renewal Fees

The fees payable to the Kenya Copyright Board are only going up by “this much”

The Honourable Attorney General (pictured above) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 49 of the Copyright Act has made new regulations.

Contrary to the picture caption above, the thrust of these new regulations is a substantial increase in the fees for applications for registration and renewal of registration of a collecting society.

The Copyright (Amendment) Act 2014: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

This blogger has received official confirmation that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2014 passed by the National Assembly on 13/08/2014, was assented to by the President of the Republic on 28/11/2014 thereby bringing the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2014 into force. The Bill has effectively amended four sections of the Copyright Act, namely sections 22, 28, 33 and 46. A copy of the Bill is available here.

The Bill’s Memorandum of Objects and Reasons explains that the Copyright Act has been amended to “empower the competent authority to grant a compulsory licence for the publication or republication or broadcasting of works which are subject to copyright where it considers that the right holder withholds consent unreasonably. It [The Bill] also restricts the imposition of a tariff or levying of royalties unless approved by the Cabinet Secretary.”

It is recalled that four other sections in the Copyright Act were amended in 2012 in the exact same manner. Please see this blogger’s comments on the 2012 amendments here. What follows are this blogger’s thoughts on the 2014 amendments to the Act:

Section 22(5)

This is an amendment by insertion. The new subsection inserted relates to the principle of automatic protection under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971). Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention reads:

“The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.”

This blogger reckons that this amendment is aimed at counteracting the effects of section 36 of the Act which requires authentication of copyright works.

Section 28(5)

The amendment to Section 28(5) states that the blank tape levy shall be collected by KECOBO and then distributed to “the respective copyright collecting society registered under section 46”. This wording is problematic since no CMO has been registered to administer audio blank tape compensation from the private copying of musical works and sound recordings.

Currently section 28(3) as read with section 30(6) of the Act provide that that owner of the sound recording and the owner of a related right in the fixation of a performance shall have the right to receive fair compensation consisting of a royalty levied on audio recording equipment or audio blank tape suitable for record and other media intended for recording, payable at the point of first sale in Kenya by the manufacturer or importer of such equipment or media.

Section 28(4) as read with section 30(7) further provides that the royalty payable under the above subsection (3) shall be agreed between organisations representative of producers of sound recordings, performers, manufacturers and importers of audio recording equipment, audio blank tape and media intended for recording or failing such agreement by the competent authority appointed under section 48.
From the aforegoing, it is clear that the copyright owners of musical works have been systematically side-lined from receiving any compensation from the collection of audio blank tape levies within the Republic of Kenya.

With reference to international best practices, it is clear that Kenya’s current legislative provisions on private copy levying are not only illegal but more importantly unconstitutional. This line of argument has been explored by this blogger here.

Finally, this blogger wonders whether the reference to “the respective copyright collecting society registered under section 46” in the amendment creates an opportunity for establishing a Collective Agency for blank tape levy administration. In other jurisdictions, such Agencies do exist and are made up of all CMOs that represent concerned rights holders.

Section 33A

This is an amendment by insertion. The new section inserted officially introduces compulsory licensing in Kenyan copyright law. However this blogger has argued previously that section 30A in the 2012 Amendments was the Government’s successful move to unofficially introduce a compulsory licensing regime under the guise of the right to equitable remuneration.

Compulsory license is the term generally applied to a statutorily license to do an act covered by an exclusive right, without the prior authority of the right owner. This concept of compulsory licensing in copyright is derived from patent law, where the owner is forced to face the competition in market, similarly in copyright law; the copyright holder is subjected to equitable remuneration. One of the main reasons for introducing non-voluntary licenses is where the users of certain works have access to these works on terms which are known in advance and it is not practicable for them to locate right owners and obtain an individual license from them.

Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention provides the legal basis for compulsory licensing in copyright law. The Article reads:

“It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the union to permit the reproduction of such works in special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.”

This provision provides the Convention’s exclusive basis for compulsory licensing and provides for the conditions which should be met before a member country can entirely excuse a use which includes compulsory licensing and not prejudicing the reasonable interests of the author. Therefore this Article provides the so-called three (3) step test for compulsory licensing, namely exceptional circumstances, no conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and no unreasonable prejudice to legitimate interests of the author.

Article 11 bis (2) provides that:-

“It shall be a matter for legislation in the country of the Union to determine the conditions under which the rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph [11 bis (1)] may be exercised but these conditions shall apply only in the countries where they have been prescribed. They shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to is right to obtain equitable remuneration which in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority.”

The amendment to section 33 emphasises the regulatory role of the Competent Authority (aka Copyright Tribunal) in compulsory licensing. This role is common in other common law jurisdictions such as the UK, US, Australia and India.

As this blogger has previously noted here, the reality in Kenya is that the Competent Authority provided under section 48 of the Act remains non-existent over a decade since the establishment of the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO). This situation is problematic as there are no mechanisms in place to monitor the practical implementation of the compulsory licences under section 30A and the proposed section 33A.

Section 46A

This is an amendment by insertion. The newly introduced section 46A creates an approval system for all tariffs set by CMOs to license copyright users. This new section prohibits any registered CMOs from imposing or collecting royalty based on tariffs that have not been approved and published in the Government Gazette from time to time by “the Cabinet Secretary in charge of copyright issues”. In addition, the new section empowers “the Cabinet Secretary” to exempt users of copyright works from paying royalties by notice in the Gazette.

A preliminary issue that may require clarification is whether the Attorney General can be deemed to be “the Cabinet Secretary” for purposes of the Act? The Act defines “Minister” as “the Minister for the time being responsible for matters relating to copyright and related rights”. In the previous dispensation, the Attorney General (who was an ex-officio member of the Cabinet) assumed the role as “Minister” since KECOBO was under the Office of the Attorney-General. It is submitted that there is an established practice in Kenya whereby the Attorney General exercised the powers and performed the functions conferred on the “Minister” such as appointment of the Competent Authority and making Regulations for the better carrying out of the provisions of the Act.

However this issue is now settled under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2014 which has amended the definition of “Minister” under the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (Cap 2 Laws of Kenya) making specific reference to the Attorney General. The relevant portion of the amendment has been reproduced below:

Nevertheless, this blogger maintains that the section 46A amendment may serve to further frustrate the relationship between CMOs and users of copyright. Over the years, this relationship has been severely strained due to the absence of the Competent Authority – a body which is authorised under the Act to deal with all issues relating to the licensing terms and conditions imposed on users by CMOs. The powers given to the Attorney General to approve tariffs and to exempt users from paying royalties may also prove problematic for CMOs.

Regrettably, this blogger notes that KECOBO and the Office of the Attorney General did not formally invite for public comments and/or conduct stakeholder consultations before causing these amendments to the Copyright Act to be passed by the Legislature and the Executive.

In the next blogpost, this blogger will discuss another set of IP law-related amendments with respect to the Kenya Anti-Counterfeit Act as contained in the Statute Law Miscellaneous Amendments Bill, 2014.

Court Rules Public Performance and Communication to the Public Licenses Are Distinct Under Copyright

On February 14, 2014 in the case of Nairobi Pacific Hotel vs KAMP & PRISK CMCC 7240 of 2013, the court dismissed an application filed by Nairobi Pacific Hotel seeking a grant of temporary injunction to restrain the Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) and the Performers Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK) from collecting fees with respect to their jointly-issued Communication to the Public license. A copy of the ruling is available here.

This court ruling creates an important precedent that a Public Performance License from the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) is not sufficient for the protection of the rights of performers and producers represented by PRiSK and KAMP, respectively. In making its ruling, the court noted that KAMP and PRiSK are collective management organisations (CMOs) duly licensed by the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) to collect license fees from the users who broadcast or communicate sound recordings and audiovisual works to the public.

The court further finds that the clean hands doctrine applies since the user in question, Nairobi Pacific Hotel, had been implored upon to obtain a Communication to the Public License but neglected and/or refused to do so solely on the basis that the latter had already obtained a Public Performance License from MCSK.

Comment:

This blogger supports the court’s ruling in this matter and applauds the related rights CMOs for successfully using litigation as a tool to enforce and protect the rights of their respective members.

The existence of the MCSK license and KAMP-PRiSK for public performance is premised on the definition of the “communication to the public” in the Copyright Act. This definition reads:

“communication to the public” means
(a) a live performance; or
(b) a transmission to the public, other than a broadcast, of the images or sounds or both, of a work, performance or sound recording;”

However the Copyright Regulations of 2004 provide the clearest definition of what amounts to “Public Performance” as it is licensed by MCSK for the rights under copyright and KAMP-PRiSK for the related rights.

Section 2 reads as follows:

“public performance” means –
(a) in the case of a work other than an audio-visual work, the recitation, playing, dancing, acting or otherwise performing the work, either directly or by means of any device or process;

(b) in the case of an audio-visual work, the showing of images in sequence and the making of accompanying sounds audible; and

(c) in the case of a sound recording, making the recorded sounds audible at a place or at places where persons outside the normal circle of the family and its closest acquaintances are or can be present, irrespective of whether they are or can be present at the same place and time, or at different places or times, and where the performance can be perceived without the need for communication to the public.

From the users’ perspective, they argue that public performance licensing by KAMP – PRiSK and MCSK “feels like double taxation since one is paying 3 different bodies licence fees for the same thing”. Herein lies the biggest challenge for CMOs: to successfully convince users that “music”, as they know it, is simultaneously categorised as three different subject matter under copyright law, namely “sound recordings”, “musical works” and “audio-visual works”. In this regard, this blogger has previously argued here that it requires a great deal of skill and salesmanship for licensing officers from the CMOs to convince users to take out their respective licenses.

In the present case of the KAMP-PRiSK license, the tariffs are based on the area in square feet of the business premises wwhere the sound recordings and audio-visual works are used. The tariff structure is available below:

In disputes between CMOs and users, the elephant in the room always seems to be the question of CMO regulation, in particular the reasonableness of the license terms and conditions imposed by CMOs on users. As previously discussed here and here, this blogger has noted that there is an increase in complaints by users against CMOs relating to license fees, in addition to the manner in which license fees are collected from users.

In the case of KAMP and PRiSK, CMO-user relations appear to have been complicated further with the enactment of section 30A in the 2012 Amendments to the Copyright Act. It would seem that Section 30A has introduced a system of compulsory licensing with the introduction of the right to equitable remuneration for use of sound recordings and audio- visual works. However, the term “equitable remuneration” remains undefined and where users of sound recordings and audio- visual works may have complaints against KAMP and PRiSK, the Competent Authority is not yet in operation to give directions on these matters.

Copyright Licensing Requires Salesmanship: Lessons from the Banned “Wolf of Wall Street”

One of the most talked about stories in the month of January was the decision by the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) to ban the sale, exhibition and distribution of the critically acclaimed Hollywood film “The Wolf of Wall Street”.

KFCB claims that the film was “restricted” due to elements that include nudity, sex, alcohol, drugs and profanity found in almost every scene of the 3-hour long motion picture which chronicles the title character’s (Jordan Belfort’s) pursuit of the American Dream.

This blogger has watched the banned film and believes that it is a must-watch for all those involved in the sale/assignment and/or licensing of content. In particular, this blogger recommends several short clips from the movie where the lead character demonstrates the art and skill of making a sale.

In the above scene, Jordan Belfort is trying to turn a group of inexperienced, undisciplined misfits into Wall Street stock brokers. In order to illustrate to the basic fundamentals of making a sale, Belfort pulls out a pen and thrusts it in their faces, with the instruction: “Sell me this pen.” After one member of his team declines, another member of his team grabs the pen from him and states:

“Do me a favour and write your name on that piece of paper, there.”

When Belfort looks around for something to write with, the future salesman replies:

“Oh, you don’t have a pen anymore. Supply and demand, bro.”

This scene illustrates a fundamental point for all salespeople: Until a need is recognized, it simply doesn’t matter how great your product or service is. Therefore, there are essentially three parts to any sale: identifying the need, creating urgency and applying the need and urgency to the sale. In short, the role of the salesperson is to help the client reconnect with his/her needs and the urgency to act upon them.

In the case of content, the license is the most common sale because it allows users to enjoy certain rights in the content without transferring ownership in the content. In this connection, this blogger has in mind the four collective management organisations (CMOs) currently in operation within Kenya, namely the Reproduction Rights Society of Kenya (KOPIKEN), Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP), Performers’ Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK) and Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK). Each of these CMOs is in the business of selling licenses to users throughout Kenya with respect to the rights holders in the various categories of works they control. From the CMOs’ perspective, the ends justify the means when it comes to licensing users of copyright works: an increase in licenses issued means an increase in royalties distributable to copyright owners. Therefore licensing staff employ various tactics to create awareness on copyright law while emphasising the need for them to take out licenses for commercial exploitation of copyright works.

A common challenge among the CMOs is increasing the number of licenses issued while at the same time reducing their administrative (operational) costs. One possible solution is tele-licensing whereby licensing staff spend the majority of their time on the phone with potential licensees countrywide. The trick behind tele-licensing is to persuade a commercial user that it requires a copyright license to continue or commence its operations and making arrangements with the user for the CMO to dispatch a licensing staff to deliver an invoice and collect the license payments.

Once again, Jordan Belfort illustrates how tele-licensing could be done in the clip below where he sells penny stocks worth $40,000 in a non-existent company.

In the Kenyan context, a higher degree of salesmanship may be required than that displayed by Belfort in the above clip due to the ignorance of copyright law among a large portion of potential content users. In fact, some licensing staff argue that in some cases, unless they physically visit business premises in the company of uniformed police officers, content users will not take out copyright licenses. However, this blogger argues that despite the low levels of awareness among copyright users, there is still an important need for sales training among the licensing staff of all the CMOs to ensure that they understand the content licenses they are selling and how to create the need and urgency among content users to take out the licenses.

 

In the Kenyan context, a higher degree of salesmanship may be required than that displayed by Belfort in the above clip due to the ignorance of copyright law among a large portion of potential content users. In fact, some licensing staff argue that in some cases, unless they physically visit business premises in the company of uniformed police officers, content users will not take out copyright licenses. However, this blogger argues that despite the low levels of awareness among copyright users, there is still an important need for sales training among the licensing staff of all the CMOs to ensure that they understand the content licenses they are selling and how to create the need and urgency among content users to take out the licenses.

Them Mushrooms Band Awarded 3 Million Shillings in Copyright Suit Against Royal Media Services

The judgment in John Katana Harrison v. Royal Media Services Ltd 6161 of 2009 sets an important precedent in the area of copyright law in Kenya. It is trite law that the right to authorize the inclusion of any musical works in an audio-visual work or a broadcast, which is known as a synchronization right, can only be authorised/licensed by the respective foreign or local copyright owners.

In reality, this blogger has observed with alot of concern that there are a number of production studios, broadcasters, marketing and advertising companies in Kenya that include musical works in their productions. The most common examples are the Wedding Shows that are aired on local television networks. These shows include a whole repertoire of well-known local and foreign musical works from various genres. Following the judgment in the Katana case, this blogger would advise all parties concerned in the synchronisation of musical works to ensure that express consent has been duly obtained and where necessary, the desired license agreements are in place.

Read the full article here

Proposed Intellectual Property Law Amendments: Kenya Copyright Act

Recently, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2013 was published in Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 146 (Bills No. 32). The Bill seeks to amend four sections of the Copyright Act, namely sections 22, 28, 33 and 46. A copy of this Bill is available here (See pages 933-936).

It is recalled that four other sections in the Copyright Act were amended in 2012
in the exact same manner. Please see this blogger’s comments on the 2012 amendments here. What follows are this blogger’s thoughts on the proposed 2013 amendments to the Act

Read the rest of this article here.

Amalgamation of Collecting Societies, Compulsory Licensing and the Role of the Copyright Tribunal

Currently, copyright and related rights licensing within the music industry generates approximately Kshs 308 million in total. From this total income, MCSK takes home over 80% with the remaining 20% shared between the related rights CMOs: KAMP and PRiSK. If you ask any of the CEOs of these three CMOs (pictured above), they will tell you that collecting just over a quarter million in license fees is barely scratching the surface of the millions of shillings in uncollected royalty payments. However, the singular challenge in collecting these missing millions has been the division among the three CMOs.

KECOBO, the government regulator of CMOs, has midwifed several failed attempts to structure a joint partnership between these three CMOs with the most notable attempt in April 2011 with the support of the Norwegian Copyright Development Association (NORCODE). The bone of contention appears to have been whether the three parties ought to be treated as equal partners in the joint revenue collection venture. At the time, this blogger was an observer and recalls that MCSK seemed particularly opposed to the idea of “a partnership among equals” for several valid reasons.

Out of this failed attempt, the seed of partnership appeared to have been sown between the related rights CMOs – KAMP and PRiSK. In July 2011, the Boards of KAMP and PRiSK agreed to start a joint collection exercise for revenue from Communication to the Public Stream of Revenue on a commission basis. Two years, KAMP and PRiSK are now carrying out joint royalty collections countrywide. The two CMOs are also sharing offices and other resources including staff which has drastically reduced their operation costs allowing them to have more income for royalty distribution to their respective members.
The related rights CMOs also appear to have been the biggest beneficiaries of the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act which introduced the right to equitable remuneration under section 30A.

Section 30A introduces compulsory licensing into Kenya’s copyright law. This section requires that all users must pay producers (through KAMP) and performers (through PRiSK) where a sound recording or its reproduction is published or used in broadcasting, communication to the public or public performance. Furthermore, the user is required to pay performers (through PRiSK) where a fixation of a performance or its reproduction is published or or used in broadcasting, communication to the public or public performance.

It is for this very reason that this blogger has been particularly harsh on KECOBO for not ensuring that the Copyright Tribunal is up and running. This Copyright Tribunal is vested with powers under the Copyright Act to hear and determine matters brought by users relating to CMO tariffs and other license conditions. In the meantime, the average user of music in Kenya must contend with two sets of royalty invoices, one from MCSK and another KAMP and PRiSK. This prevailing situation has resulted in increased hostility and resistance from users who feel overburdened and thus refuse to pay license fees all together.

In addition to pushing for the setting up of the Copyright Tribunal, this blogger submits that KECOBO should actively encourage the amalgamation of the collecting societies operating within the music industry for the sake of the overburden users of music in Kenya. One viable option for KECOBO would be to amend the Copyright Act to allow for the voluntary amalgamation of two or more registered CMOs. Such an amendment would allow for several CMOs to form one single CMO while remaining registered companies limited by guarantee. This proposal is inspired by section 71 of Uganda’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of 2006 which reads as follows:-

71. Voluntary amalgamation of societies

(1) Any two or more registered societies may, with the prior approval of the Registrar, amalgamate into a single society.

(2) An amalgamation referred to in subsection (1) shall not take place unless—
(a) a general meeting of each of the societies has been called;
(b) each member of the society has had a clear notice of fifteen days of the meeting; and
(c) a preliminary resolution has been passed by a two-thirds majority of the members present at the meeting for the amalgamation.

(3) An amalgamation of registered societies into one society under this section may be effected without dissolution of the societies concerned or a division of the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated societies and a resolution of the society passed for the amalgamation shall be sufficient for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated societies to the new society.

This proposed amendment to Kenya’s Copyright Act would send a strong and clear message to the user that KECOBO supports the growing public sentiment against a multiplicity of registered CMOs levying fees for the same or similar works. Such a legal provision would also enable members to put pressure on their respective CMOs to amalgamate and create a one-stop shop for licensing of their rights and distribution of royalties.

Very Awkward Interview on Music Copyright & Piracy on KTN Africa Speaks

 

Along with KECOBO’s bad decision not to attend the interview, this blogger was left with several other questions after watching the above full length video clip.

1. Was there any mention or explanation of KECOBO’s role as regulator of collective management organisations (CMOs)? And how this role could impact both positively and negatively on the music industry?

2. Was there a clear distinction made between:
– the benefits of depositing one’s work at KECOBO for registration?
– the benefits of declaring one’s work at a CMO for purposes of membership (which may entail further entitlements such as royalties, centralised rights clearances and policing of rights)?

3. Was the issue of the internet as a double-edged sword (music distribution vs music piracy) addressed (as brilliantly brought out in the Salif Keita clip)?

4. Was there any mention of the role of KECOBO in fighting piracy through enforcement actions and prosecutions arising from the various offences created under the Copyright Act? And how this role could impact both positively and negatively on the music industry?

5. Is “having one CMO” (whatever that means) the only solution available to the current problem of unlawful competition and unethical practices among the three music CMOs?

Summary of the Trade Mark Act Cap 506 Laws of Kenya

This law provides for the protection, promotion and registration of trade marks. The Act defines a mark to include a distinguishing guise, slogan, device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter or numeral or any combination thereof whether rendered in two dimensional or three-dimensional form.

Section 15A of this Act specifically incorporates marks that are protected under the Paris Convention or the WTO Agreement’s Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, 1994 as a well known trade mark.

Trade marks in Kenya are registered by Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) and administered by its Managing Director who is the Registrar of Trade Marks for purposes of the Trade Mark Act.

The Act has elaborate provisions against the infringement of trade mark rights.

Examples of Registered Trade Marks in Kenya

Words, devices, combinations of words and devices, slogans and numerals can all be registered as trade marks. Three dimensional marks can be registered in Kenya.

Below are some examples given by KIPI:

Trade Mark Registration Process in Kenya

Registration of trade marks takes between five to six months, including a sixty-day period during which time trade mark applications are published (advertisement) in the Industrial Property Journal. This Journal is published monthly by KIPI, with electronic copies available on KIPI’s website here. Once registered, a trade mark registration is valid for ten years from the date of registration, except where the registration is expunged or declared to be invalid through a process instituted before the Registrar of Trade Marks or the High Court of Kenya. The current trade mark fees payable to KIPI are available here.

The process is set out below:

Below are all the trade mark forms from KIPI (TM Form No. 1 – TM Form No. 55) :

	Description	PDF	Word
TM 1	Form of authorization of agent	Tm1	Tm1
TM 2	Application for Registration of a mark	Tm2	Tm2
Tm6	Notice of Opposition of Application	Form Tm6	Form Tm6
TM 10	Application for Renewal of mark	Tm10	Tm10
Tm10a	Certificate of registration of trademark	Form10a	Form10a
Tm14	Request to register Assignment or transmission	Tm14	Tm14
Tm17	Request to alter Trade or Business Address in the register	Tm17	Tm17
Tm19	Application to correct Clerical error in register or to ament document, etc.	Tm19	Tm19
Tm20	Application to change name or description in the register	Tm20	Tm20
Tm 21	Application to surrender Trade Mark fro all Goods and Services	Tm 21	Tm 21
Tm22	Application to surrender Trade Mark for some Goods and Services	Tm22	Tm22
Tm23	Application to ender disclaimer or memorandum in Register	Tm23	Tm23
Tm24	Application to add to or alter registered Trade mark	Tm24	Tm24
Tm25	Application for the Marking ,Expunging or varying of an entry in the register	Tm25	Tm25
Tm26	Application for leave to intervene in proceedings for making Expunging or varying of an entry in the register	Tm26	Tm26
TM 27	Application for search under rule 114/Application for preliminary advice as to distinctiveness.	TM 27	TM 27
Tm30	Request for certificate other than under section 22 of the act	Tm30	Tm30
TM 32	Application to enter or alter address for service	TM 32	TM 32
Tm34	Application for alteration of deposited regulations relating to certification of trademark	Tm34	Tm34
Tm43	Application to adapt Classification so that it is in accordance with section 6(2) of the act		Tm43
Tm44     TM 48	Notice of opposition to application to have classification adapted Application for registration of registered user.	Tm44 Tm48	Tm44
Tm53	Application for extension of Time	Tm53	Tm53
Tm54	Order form for copy of document	Tm54	Tm54
Tm55	Application to add goods or services to a Trade Mark or an Application	Tm55	Tm55

 

International Registration of Kenyan Trade Marks

Kenya is a member of both the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, and trade marks registered via this Madrid route are recognised and enforceable as if they were registered in Kenya. This Madrid system is under the ambit of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and it enables Kenyan companies and entrepreneurs to protect their trademarks in multiple countries around the world by filing one application with one set of fees and designating KIPI as the receiving office.

For a practical example of how the Madrid system works, check our blogpost here based on a hypothetical case of a fictitious product “Quail Advanced” pictured above.