High Court Strikes Down Appointment of Anti-Counterfeit Agency Board Chairman Twice in a Row

anti-counterfeit-agency-aca-nairobi-lsk-milimani-legal-awareness-week-2016-kenya

This blogger has come across a recent High Court judgment in the case of Republic v Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Tom Odoyo Oloo [2016] eKLR in which the appointment of the chairman of Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) was challenged for being unconstitutional.  In the earlier case of Republic v. Attorney General & 3 Others Ex-Parte Tom Odoyo Oloo [2015] eKLR discussed on this blog here, the High Court struck down the appointment of Polycarp Igathe as ACA Chairman and less than one week later on 24th December 2015, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for ACA appointed Igathe as ACA Chairman to take effect from 17th April 2015, the effective date that was the subject of the Court’s orders in the 2015 case. According to the applicant in the present case, this re-appointment of Igathe was both illegal and unconstitutional.

Continue reading

Customs Officers Cannot Enforce Intellectual Property Rights: Court of Appeal Judgment in Kenya Revenue Authority v Doshi Iron Mongers

doshigroup-630x315

In the case of Kenya Revenue Authority v Doshi Iron Mongers & another [2016] eKLR, the Court of Appeal was called upon to determine whether Section 5 of the Customs and Excise Act gives an officer of the Appellant (KRA) under the Act powers, rights and privileges akin to those given to a police officer in execution of his duties under Cap 84 of the Laws of Kenya, in particular that such an officer can enforce intellectual property (IP) rights including raids, arrests and seizure of goods not listed under Schedule 8 of the Customs Act.

In the lower court, the respondents had complained that their warehouses in Mombasa and Nairobi were raided between 1996 and 2006 by the appellant for no rhyme or reason, purporting to search for counterfeit, substandard and uncustomed goods particularly ‘BIC’ biro pens, battery cells, and other items at the behest of companies such as Haco Industries who were the assigned users of the trade mark.

Continue reading

ARIPO Copyright Office Publishes Survey Findings on Status of African Collective Management Organizations

aripo member states map africa intellectual property regional organization copyright CMO survey

On the eve of its 40th anniversary, the Harare-based African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) has recently published the findings of a survey on collective management organisations (CMOs) conducted among its member states. A copy of the survey is available here. In the foreword, ARIPO Director General Mr. Fernando Dos Santos explains that:

“The findings [of the survey] indicate that CMOs in the ARIPO Member States are growing in numbers. It was also found that there is growth in collections of royalties and distributions. However, CMOs are also facing challenges which include insufficient or lack of awareness of copyright laws by users and the general public, users’ unwillingness to pay royalties, piracy of the copyrighted works, inadequate resources and manpower within the CMOs and inadequate availability of technologies that can be used by the CMOs.”

Continue reading

Four Africans Named among 2015 Managing IP Top 50 Most Influential People in Intellectual Property

mip award

As many will recall last year this blogger was the only African named among 2014 Managing IP Top 50 Most Influential People in Intellectual Property.

This year, Managing IP (MIP) has recently published the 13th edition of the annual List of the 50 Most Influential People in IP (MIP50). According to MIP:

“This year’s list… is one of the most diverse ever, including people from Europe, North America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Some of those on the list are known for promoting stronger IP protection; others are skeptical; some are known for attacking IP rights; and many do not fit easily into any of these categories. More than one-third of those included are women, a record number.”

The full MIP50 List is available here and readers can follow the discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #MIP50.

Continue reading

High Court Orders Government to Facilitate Copyright Tribunal in PERAK Case against KAMP and PRiSK

pub kenya perak

In a judgment delivered recently, the High Court in the case of Republic v Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) & 3 others Ex- Parte Pubs, Entertainment and Restaurants Association of Kenya (PERAK) [2014] eKLR has ordered the State to set up the Competent Authority established under the Copyright Act to hear and determine the dispute between PERAK and the related rights collective management organisations KAMP and PRiSK with respect to the latter’s tariffs for communication to the public.

As many may know, the Pubs, Entertainment and Restaurants Association of Kenya (PERAK) is the largest single entity representing owners and managers of the major restaurants, pubs and entertainment venues in Kenya. PERAK is registered under the Societies Act as a welfare Organization and its main objective is to bring together operators with a view of resolving common problems in the hospitality industry, developing a code of conduct for its members, engage in social responsibility activities and generally to help members comply with various regulations governing the hospitality industry.

The gist of the PERAK’s judicial review action is summarised in the following three orders which were sought from the court, namely:-

“1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order of prohibition to prohibit the 1st and 2nd Respondents from arbitrarily imposing and collecting high tariffs/license fees and other levies from the Applicant’s members’ business premises using a wrong tariff structure and generally harassing, intimidating and confiscating their business equipment throughout the Republic of Kenya.
2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order of mandamus compelling and directing the 3rd and 4th Respondents to hear and determine the dispute between the Applicant and the 1st and 2nd Respondents in relation to the high license fees charged and /or tariffs charged/levied using a wrong tariff structure by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
3. The costs of this Application be provided for.”

In the court’s judgment, PERAK succeeded to prove that it had locus standi to institute proceedings on behalf of its members in addition to order no. 2. However PERAK was unsuccessful on order no. 1. With respect to order no. 3, the court declined to make any order as to costs.

Comment:

This blogger is surprised by PERAK’s poor form in mounting its judicial review suit against KAMP and PRiSK. This was clearly manifest from several unsubstantiated allegations, inaccurate and outrightly false statements of the provisions of the law by PERAK.

The most significance of this judgment can be found in the last four paragraghs where the court examines whether the government can and should be compelled to give effect to section 48 of the Copyright Act. On numerous occasions (see some examples here, here, here and here) this blogger has emphasised the need for Kenya to immediately operationalise the Competent Authority aka the Copyright Tribunal which is established under the Copyright Act to hear and determine disputes between users and CMOs.

Therefore this blogger is elated that the High Court has seized the opportunity to state clearly that the Government, in particular the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice can no longer rely on the same old excuses as reasons for not facilitating the operations of the Competent Authority.

To quote the court:

“The only reason advanced by the Kenya Copyright Board why the Competent Authority cannot fulfil its said statutory duty is that the Competent Authority is yet to be operationalized owing to budgetary and administrative challenges and hence the same is not functional. Article 47(1) of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. Article 21(1) of the Constitution on the other hand provides that it is a fundamental duty of the State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. It is therefore upon the State to facilitate the Competent Authority so that it can undertake its statutory duties. To fail to do so amounts to abdication of the Constitutional duties imposed upon the State and in applying a provision of the Bill of Rights this Court is enjoined by Article 20(3)(b) of the Constitution to adopt the interpretation that most favours the enforcement of a right or fundamental freedom.
Adopting the said approach, this Court is not satisfied that the reason advanced by the Kenya Copyright Board warrants the state being absolved from the performance of its statutory duties taking into account the fact that the Competent Authority is already in the office.”

The ball is therefore squarely in the government’s court to operationalise the Competent Authority failing with PERAK will be at liberty to return to court for contempt orders against the Kenya Copyright Board.

Summary of the Trade Mark Act Cap 506 Laws of Kenya

This law provides for the protection, promotion and registration of trade marks. The Act defines a mark to include a distinguishing guise, slogan, device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter or numeral or any combination thereof whether rendered in two dimensional or three-dimensional form.

Section 15A of this Act specifically incorporates marks that are protected under the Paris Convention or the WTO Agreement’s Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, 1994 as a well known trade mark.

Trade marks in Kenya are registered by Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) and administered by its Managing Director who is the Registrar of Trade Marks for purposes of the Trade Mark Act.

The Act has elaborate provisions against the infringement of trade mark rights.

Examples of Registered Trade Marks in Kenya

Words, devices, combinations of words and devices, slogans and numerals can all be registered as trade marks. Three dimensional marks can be registered in Kenya.

Below are some examples given by KIPI:

1 kosgei kipi 2010

2 kosgei kipi 2010

3 kosgei kipi 2010

Trade Mark Registration Process in Kenya

Registration of trade marks takes between five to six months, including a sixty-day period during which time trade mark applications are published (advertisement) in the Industrial Property Journal. This Journal is published monthly by KIPI, with electronic copies available on KIPI’s website here. Once registered, a trade mark registration is valid for ten years from the date of registration, except where the registration is expunged or declared to be invalid through a process instituted before the Registrar of Trade Marks or the High Court of Kenya. The current trade mark fees payable to KIPI are available here.

The process is set out below:

4 kosgei kipi 2010

Below are all the trade mark forms from KIPI (TM Form No. 1 – TM Form No. 55) :

Description PDF Word
TM 1 Form of authorization of agent Tm1 Tm1
TM 2 Application for Registration of a mark Tm2 Tm2
Tm6 Notice of Opposition of Application Form Tm6 Form Tm6
TM 10 Application for Renewal of mark Tm10 Tm10
Tm10a Certificate of registration of trademark Form10a Form10a
Tm14 Request to register Assignment or transmission Tm14 Tm14
Tm17 Request to alter Trade or Business Address in the register Tm17 Tm17
Tm19 Application to correct Clerical error in register or to ament document, etc. Tm19 Tm19
Tm20 Application to change name or description in the register Tm20 Tm20
Tm 21 Application to surrender Trade Mark fro all Goods and Services Tm 21 Tm 21
Tm22 Application to surrender Trade Mark for some Goods and Services Tm22 Tm22
Tm23 Application to ender disclaimer or memorandum in Register Tm23 Tm23
Tm24 Application to add to or alter registered Trade mark Tm24 Tm24
Tm25 Application for the Marking ,Expunging or varying of an entry in the register Tm25 Tm25
Tm26 Application for leave to intervene in proceedings for making Expunging or varying of an entry in the register Tm26 Tm26
TM 27 Application for search under rule 114/Application for preliminary advice as to distinctiveness. TM 27 TM 27
Tm30 Request for certificate other than under section 22 of the act Tm30 Tm30
TM 32 Application to enter or alter address for service TM 32 TM 32
Tm34 Application for alteration of deposited regulations relating to certification of trademark Tm34 Tm34
Tm43 Application to adapt Classification so that it is in accordance with section 6(2) of the act Tm43

 

Tm44

 

 

TM 48

Notice of opposition to application to have classification adapted

Application for registration of registered user.

Tm44
Tm48
 

Tm44

 

 

Tm53 Application for extension of Time Tm53 Tm53
Tm54 Order form for copy of document Tm54 Tm54
Tm55 Application to add goods or services to a Trade Mark or an Application Tm55 Tm55

 

International Registration of Kenyan Trade Marks

quail-advanced-regular-strength

Kenya is a member of both the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, and trade marks registered via this Madrid route are recognised and enforceable as if they were registered in Kenya. This Madrid system is under the ambit of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and it enables Kenyan companies and entrepreneurs to protect their trademarks in multiple countries around the world by filing one application with one set of fees and designating KIPI as the receiving office.

For a practical example of how the Madrid system works, check our blogpost here based on a hypothetical case of a fictitious product “Quail Advanced” pictured above.