- Kenya Guns for Top ICT Positions in Africa and Globally [Official]
- Strengthening Africa’s audiovisual sector: market intelligence is critical [WIPO Magazine]
- Technology transfer to transform agricultural production in Africa [African Development Bank]
- A decision-making tool for countries to implement the Multilateral System of Access and Benefit Sharing [Biodiversity International]
- ‘My President is a Pair of Buttocks’: the limits of online freedom of expression in Uganda [Oxford]
- Parallel imports remain a grey area for IP rights in East Africa [Captain Obvious]
- Trademark Infringement in Nigeria: What is ‘Use in the Course of Trade’? [Afro-IP]
- In case you missed it: You can now register copyright online in Kenya [KECOBO]
- Industrial Property Act Comes Into Effect [Namibia Economist]
- Scotch Whisky Association awarded a certification trademark in South Africa [the drinks business]
- Ethiopia becoming an industrial powerhouse and future ‘Wakanda’ [Asia Times]
- 10% of WIPO’s workforce comes from Africa [2018 Report]
For more news stories and developments, please check out #ipkenya on twitter and feel free to share any other IP/ICT-related items that you may come across.
Have a great week-end!
- A Kenyan painter’s art questions China’s deepening reach in Africa [Quartz]
Implementing AfCFTA: When and How? [tralac
- Draft ICANN Africa Strategic Plan 2016-2020 Version 3.0 [Have Your Say]
- How to sue a plagiarist – an opinion on the law and plagiarism [Stellenbosch]
- Interesting end to Crown Hotel-Crowne Plaza Trade Mark Dispute [Addis Fortune]
- South Africa: Fostering technology innovation [Cape Town]
- Kenya: What happened to the boy who chased away the lions? [BBC]
- Zambia: Government urges users to take up ZARRSO licences [IFRRO]
- Ethiopia: New legislation for plant breeders’ rights [A+ Bunch of Lawyers]
- African thought leaders on the Berkman Klein list of 2018-2019 Fellows [Harvard]
- Vacancies: Development, Innovation & IP @ The South Centre [Apply Now]
- WIPO Indigenous Fellowship Program [Deadline September 21, 2018]
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!
Last month, the President signed Executive Order No. 1 of 2018 on the Organisation of Government which, inter alia, assigned functions and institutions among Ministries and State Departments. One interesting new change in the structure of the Government is that Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) and Kenya Film Commission (KFC) are now listed under the State Department for Broadcasting and Telecommunications in the ICT Ministry. In addition the Ministry’s functions now includes overall responsibility for policies on film development in Kenya and the development of the country’s film industry.
This may all seem like a mundane bureaucratic detail but in reality it may well represent a fundamental shift in Kenya’s approach to the development of the creative economy and the important contribution of the film industry. But like every good story, there is a plot twist: the only thing that KFCB and KFC seem to agree on is that they are better off separate than together. Lately, the two lead film agencies have been at loggerheads (see video clips here and here) over how best the film industry should be regulated for the development of this vital pillar of the creative and cultural industries.
Endless wrangles in Kenya’s collective management system have made us all experts in copyright law. The thorny question of how and to what extent key players in the collective administration of copyright and related rights must comply with the Constitution remains a hotly debated topic. This brings us to a recent judgment by the High Court in the case of Laban Toto Juma & 4 Others v. Kenya Copyright Board & 2 Others Consolidated Kakamega Petition No. 3B of 2017 delivered on 13 July 2018. A copy of this High Court judgment is available here. Not surprisingly, both sides in this see-saw legal battle are claiming victory following the court’s final verdict. So, this blogpost will attempt to examine the key issues tackled by the court in its judgment as well as some of the questions that have been left unanswered.
In what could be a precedent-setting case for the roofing products market, a leading iron sheet manufacturer is claiming both trade mark and industrial design protection for two of its roofing brands against a smaller rival company. The recently reported ruling in Royal Mabati Factory Limited v Imarisha Mabati Limited  eKLR was the courts’ first attempt to deal with industrial property protection for corrugated iron sheets widely used as roofing material known in Kiswahili as ‘mabati’. Although not clearly distinguishing between the aspects of industrial design and trade mark protection, the court was prepared to rule in favour of Royal and grant its application for a temporary injunction against Imarisha.
Like clockwork, behind every mega corporate launch in Kenya is a law suit over allegedly ‘stolen’ intellectual property (IP). In a recent High Court ruling in Incognito Productions Limited & another v Nation Media Group  eKLR, the learned judge appeared to sympathise with the Plaintiffs but not enough to grant their application for a temporary injunction against the Defendant, one of Kenya’s largest media conglomerates that recently rolled out a multi-million shilling project dubbed ‘Lit Music’.
The face of Lit Music (which is really just a record label) is ‘LIT 360’, a 1-hour programme made available simultaneously on Nation’s radio, television and digital platforms. LIT 360 was designed with the aim of talent scouting, soliciting and harvesting content, as well as distribution, marketing and promotion of musical talent. As readers may have undoubtedly figured out by now, the Plaintiffs’ claim is that Nation unlawfully appropriated their concept which underlies Lit Music and LIT 360 based on a series of confidential business proposals made to Nation by the Plaintiffs between July 2016 and March 2017.
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.