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.
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 an earlier post, this blogger asked the question: what is the duration of copyright where the owner of the copyright work is a juristic person? This question stemmed from an on-going discussion about a practice at the Copyright Office whereby corporate entities are permitted to register copyright works in their own names.
Two schools of thought emerged: on one hand, corporate authorship does not exist in Kenya therefore “company-produced” works are to be considered as pseudonymous works with the attendant consequences for expiration of copyright. on the other hand, corporate authorship can be presumed to exist and that the corporate entity will enjoy copyright protection in the same way as a natural person.
At the heart of this debate, is a fundamental question of statutory interpretation. What interpretation should be given to the words “author” and “person” in sections 2(1) and 23(2) of the Copyright Act? Should such interpretation have the effect of excluding juristic persons from the Act?
Interestingly, this month the High Court of Kenya delivered a judgment in the matter of Petition No. 278 of 2011 Nairobi Law Monthly Vs. Kenya Electricity Generating Company & Others, which goes further in limiting the “personhood” of corporate entities in Kenya. This judgment sheds new light on citizens’ right to seek information under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The case arose following a petition by Nairobi Law Monthly Limited, publisher of the Nairobi Law Monthly magazine, in which it contended that the refusal of Kenya Electricity Generation Company Limited (Kengen) to disclose some information it required constituted abridgment of the Publisher’s right to Information coupled with its freedom to publish information for the public.
The respondents in this matter argued, inter alia, that the use of the word “citizen” with regard the freedom to seek and obtain information under Article 35 of the Constitution meant that the right cannot be exercised by a natural person who is not a citizen or a company, which cannot be considered a citizen even if its shareholding and directorship is exclusively Kenyan.
Read the rest of this article on the CIPIT Law Blog here.