H.E. Amb. Dr. Stephen Ndungu Karau, Ambassador and Permanent Representative deposits the instruments of accession to the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention on behalf of the Republic of Kenya received by Dr. Francis Gurry Director-General World Intellectual Property Organization – April 11 2016 Geneva, Switzerland.
On May 11th 2016, the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention) of December 2, 1961, as revised on March 19, 1991 entered into force in Kenya. As readers know, Kenya was the first country in Africa to join Union internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) when it became a member on May 13th 1999 and subsequently domesticated the 1961 Act of the UPOV Convention in the Kenya Seed and Plant Varieties Act Cap 326.
Previously this blogger highlighted the recently adopted ARIPO Arusha Protocol and the draft SADC Protocol which are both modelled around UPOV 1991 standards. In this connection, the entering into force of UPOV 1991 in Kenya is a significant development for both plant breeders’ rights as well as farmers’ rights.
This blogpost has been prompted by two recent developments in Kenya and Namibia. In Kenya, the High Court recently delivered a ruling in the case of Music Copyright Society of Kenya Limited & another v Multichoice (K) Limited & another  eKLR in which the court dismissed the copyright infringement suit filed by the collective management organisation MCSK against Multichoice. Meanwhile in Namibia, a recent report here reveals one of the reasons why Southern African Music Rights Organisation (SAMRO) which receives royalties from Multichoice has failed to distribute them to other concerned African copyright societies.
The good folks over at The Scinnovent Centre have just published a new study titled: “Industrial Property Rights Acquisition in Kenya: Facts, figures and trends”. This March 2015 study was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) with the partnership, support and guidance of Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) and National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). The study used KIPI’s database of all industrial property applications and grants since its inception in 1990 to date (2014) and sought to answer four key questions: (i) Where do the inventions come from? In other words who owns the industrial property protected in Kenya? (ii) How does foreign (international) applicants compare with national (domestic) applications? (iii) In which economic sectors are the most industrial property applications registered? (iv) what are the key challenges/ bottlenecks faced by the applicants?
The data analysed in the study consists of the records of KIPI registry database on the filings, grants and registration of the IP protections for patents (1990 – 2013); utility models (1993 – 2013) and industrial designs (1991 – April 2014). The samples consisted of 2388 patents, 396 utility models and 1392 industrial designs. The study does not include data relating to patent, utility model and industrial design applications filed and granted through African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO).
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.
We are pleased to have come across a solitary article on Intellectual Property (IP) in the recent Law Society of Kenya Journal Volume 9(2) of 2013. This article is titled “Copyright Protection for Foreign Works in Kenya” and was authored by Mr. Wilfred Lusi.
From the outset, the article appears to be premised on the problematic assumption that foreign works do not enjoy copyright protection in Kenya. Take for instance the first paragraph which reads: “The discussion herein is limited to exploring the significance of extending appropriate copyright protection to foreign works…”
In addition, the article fails to distinguish which category of copyright works will be examined in the article. Despite this lack of focus, a cursory reading of the article reveals that the main works primarily considered by the author were audio-visual and musical works. There also appears to be no distinction drawn in the article between copyright and related rights in foreign works. This blogger respectfully argues that this last distinction would have proved useful particularly from the perspective of administration of rights and enforcement of rights.
Read the rest of this article here.