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.
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.
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 2008, Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) was birthed as Kenya’s TRIPS-plus experiment to spearhead intellectual property (IP) rights enforcement by coordinating efforts among various state agencies. In our humble opinion, ACA deserves no score higher than 3/10 for its performance in fulfilling its overall statutory mandate in Kenya.
It was envisioned that ACA would be a shining example of an inter-agency approach to IP rights enforcement with private sector coordination. Ten years later, it is safe to say that ACA has failed to live up to its potential. The reason? Two words: Institutional Corruption.
- Nigeria’s World Cup kit sells out in 15 minutes [BBC]
- Rwanda’s £30m Arsenal sponsorship divides opinion [The Guardian]
- Uganda imposes tax on social media use [Reuters]
- Cameroon: 3rd Meeting of the ARIPO-OAPI Joint Commission on Intellectual Property [In French]
- Tanzania: AY and Mwana FA awarded Sh96 million against telco giant [SDE]
- Court rules SONY is not a well-known brand in Kenya [Business Daily]
- Music Copyright Society of Kenya Now Banned from Collecting Music Royalties [Captain Obvious]
- New South African IP Policy Text Now Available [Official]
- Some concerns on advertisements in Ethiopia [The Herald]
- Running the gauntlet: making wise patenting decisions [Dennemeyer IP Blog]
- MaXhosa v Zara [Stellenbosch IP Chair]
- Winners of the 2017 ATRIP Essay Competition Announced [ATRIP]
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!
In our previous blogpost here, we discussed an agreement between Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and global biotech firm Novozymes A/S entered into in May 2007 entitling Denmark-based Novozymes to access and exploit for commercial purposes genetic resources, enzymes and micro-organisms within national parks, national reserves and other protected areas within Kenya.
In a recent media report, Chief Administrative Secretary in the Ministry of Environment William Kiprono has urged the Baringo County government to ‘demand full disclosure of all the money from the royalties deal.’ Kiprono reportedly said that the micro-organisms collected from Lake Bogoria ‘should have been of great benefit to the community’ and that ‘the county government should revisit to see if the amount paid to the community living around the lake is commensurate with the billions of shillings the bio-tech industries are getting from the enzymes.’
In the spirit of this year’s music-themed World IP Day, this blogger has opted to share a recent ruling: In the Matter of Trade Mark No. KE/T/2010/67586 “KENYA BOYS CHOIR” (WORDS) in Classes 16 and 41 in the Name of Joseph Muyale Inzai and Expungement Proceedings Thereto by Kenyan Boys Choir delivered by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks at the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI).
In 2010, one Joseph Muyale Inzai filed an application to register his trade mark “KENYA BOYS CHOIR” (WORDS) before the Registrar of Trade Marks in classes 16 and 41 of the Nice Classification. The mark was approved, published and thereafter entered in the Register of Trade Marks in 2010. In the same year, Members of a choir known as Kenyan Boys Choir obtained registration of their business names “THE KENYAN BOYS CHOIR” and “THE BOYS CHOIR OF KENYA” under the Registration of Business Names Act.
These Members of the Kenyan Boys Choir filed an application for expungement of the mark claiming that they were aggrieved by the entry of the mark for various reasons including that they were the true owners of the mark: “KENYAN BOYS CHOIR” which was virtually identical to the mark in question: “KENYA BOYS CHOIR”.