The recently formed Inter-Agency Anti-Illicit Trade clique sounds like it could have been a WhatsApp group. In last Friday’s Kenya Gazette, the Minister at the time announced the establishment and appointment of both an Inter-Agency Anti-Illicit Trade Executive Forum (23 members in total) and an Inter-Agency Anti-Illicit Trade Technical Working Group (24 members in total). The Executive Forum and Technical Working Group are apparently expected to deliver on the President’s Big 4 Agenda pillar of enhancing manufacturing so that the sector contributes 15% to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 9.2% in 2016.
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 word ‘Disconnect’ (see caption image above) may be the title of the latest Kenyan blockbuster film but it also embodies the current raging debate over proposed changes to The Anti-Counterfeit Act No. 13 of 2008. In our previous blogposts here and here, we have largely dwelt on the demerits of the proposals contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018, which if enacted, would radically affect intellectual property (IP) enforcement in Kenya, principally undertaken by Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA).
Meanwhile, some readers of this blog, who happen to be IP practitioners specialising in brand enforcement and anti-counterfeiting matters, have rightly pointed out that it is equally important to consider the merits of and benefits expected from the proposed changes to the Act if and when the omnibus Bill is enacted. In particular, this blogpost will focus on the proposals relating to offences and the ‘recordation’ requirements.
The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2018 seeks to make various, wide-ranging amendments to existing intellectual property (IP) law-related statutes. The Bill contains proposed amendments to the following pieces of legislation: The Industrial Property Act, 2001 (No. 3 of 2001), The Copyright Act, 2001 (No. 12 of 2001), The Anti-Counterfeit Act, 2008 (No. 13 of 2008) and The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, 2016 (No. 33 of 2016). The Memorandum of Objects and Reasons for the Bill is signed by Hon. Aden Duale, Leader of Majority in the National Assembly and it is dated 29 March 2018. This blogpost will focus on the proposed changes to The Anti-Counterfeit Act.
How to spot ‘fake’ Timberland shoes 101
Following the high profile raid and seizure of a ‘fake’ shoes shop in Nakuru (see video footage here), the court has delivered a recent judgment in the case of Paul Kihara Nduba t/a Shikanisha Shoes Collection v Attorney General & another  eKLR in which the owner of the Nakuru shoes shop challenged the enforcement actions taken by the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA). The Petitioner sought several declaratory orders from the court to the effect that Section 23 (c) of the Anti-Counterfeit Act No. 13 of 2008 is unconstitutional and inconsistent with Articles 23 (2), 25 (c) and 31 (a) of the Constitution of Kenya and that ACA acted in excess of and in violation of Section 31 (a) and (b) of the Constitution.
In determining this petition, the court addressed the following issues: 1) Whether this petition is competent; 2) Whether the seizure of the Petitioner’s goods by ACA was lawful; and 3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the orders sought in the petition.
This blogger has recently come across the reported case of Harleys Limited v Ripples Pharmaceuticlas Limited & another  eKLR. Vitabiotics Limited, a UK-based drug manufacturing company had previously engaged Ripples Pharmaceutical Limited and Metro Pharmaceuticals Limited to import, distribute and sell their products in Kenya. Thereafter, Harleys Limited became Vitabiotics exclusive distributor in Kenya. Harleys then went to court and obtained temporary orders blocking Ripples and Metro from importing, packaging, selling as well as distributing products bearing a trademark similar or confusingly similar in get-up to the trademarks owned by Vitabiotics.
The court’s ruling was focused on two main issues namely; (1) Whether or not the Harleys had legal standing/locus standi to institute the proceedings? and (2) If so, was Harleys entitled to the orders it had sought in its application?