#ipkenya Weekly Dozen: 15/06

Matthew Inman Oatmeal World Cup 2018 DfmH7qZVMAAkmZe

World Cup 2018 starts this week!

  • ARIPO holds the Second Symposium on Copyright and Related Rights [Official]
  • Tete Goat – First Geographical Indication of Mozambique [Inventa]
  • Namibia introduces new Industrial Property Act [A+ Bunch of Lawyers]
  • Competition Authority confirms Egypt’s right to air 22 World Cup games [Egypt Today]
  • Should Africa let Silicon Valley in? [The Guardian]
  • Kenya to publish draft data protection bill this month [Reuters]
  • Rethinking Uganda’s State Brand Strategy Using Intangible Assets [Amani IP Network]
  • Restriction on Parallel Imports Gets Red-Lighted By Competition Authority of Kenya [BD Africa]
  • Stolen melodies: Copyright law in Africa [Deutsche Welle]
  • Rwanda: Experts call for autonomous Intellectual Property office [The New Times]
  • Kenya: Sharing books online kills creativity, it’s outright theft [One-sided coin]
  • Anti-Counterfeit Agency Insults Intelligence of Stakeholders at ‘Consultative Forum’ on Proposed IP Law [Shameless Plug]

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!

Advertisements

Anti-Counterfeit Agency Defends Flawed Proposals on Mandatory Intellectual Property Rights ‘Recordation’

ACA Kenya Tweet

Yesterday the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) posted this response in the comments section of our blogpost last week titled: ‘Controversial 2018 Proposed Amendments to The Anti-Counterfeit Act’. In the face of widespread criticism from intellectual property (IP) experts, ACA has defended its proposed amendments to the Anti-Counterfeit Act which, if enacted, would effectively introduce a system for mandatory ‘recordation’ of trade marks, copyright and plant breeders rights to be administered by ACA.

Prior to writing that blogpost, this blogger had reached out to ACA for an official comment asking the following question: ‘What is your response to public concerns about the implications of the draft amendments to your Act on 1) the mandates of Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI) and Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO); 2) ease of doing business in Kenya generally; 3) international best practice?’ All the various responses from ACA will be considered in this blogpost.

Continue reading

Controversial 2018 Proposed Amendments to The Anti-Counterfeit Act

2018 Amendments to Anti-Counterfeit Act Kenya ACA Bill

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, 2018 seeks to make various, wide-ranging amendments to existing intellectual property (IP) law-related statutes. The Bill contains proposed amendments to the following pieces of legislation: The Industrial Property Act, 2001 (No. 3 of 2001), The Copyright Act, 2001 (No. 12 of 2001), The Anti-Counterfeit Act, 2008 (No. 13 of 2008) and The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, 2016 (No. 33 of 2016). The Memorandum of Objects and Reasons for the Bill is signed by Hon. Aden Duale, Leader of Majority in the National Assembly and it is dated 29 March 2018. This blogpost will focus on the proposed changes to The Anti-Counterfeit Act.

Continue reading

Legal Capacity of Distributor in Trade Mark Action: Ruling in Harleys Ltd v Ripples Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Anor

VITABIOTICS LTD UK

This blogger has recently come across the reported case of Harleys Limited v Ripples Pharmaceuticlas Limited & another [2015] eKLR. Vitabiotics Limited, a UK-based drug manufacturing company had previously engaged Ripples Pharmaceutical Limited and Metro Pharmaceuticals Limited to import, distribute and sell their products in Kenya. Thereafter, Harleys Limited became Vitabiotics exclusive distributor in Kenya. Harleys then went to court and obtained temporary orders blocking Ripples and Metro from importing, packaging, selling as well as distributing products bearing a trademark similar or confusingly similar in get-up to the trademarks owned by Vitabiotics.

The court’s ruling was focused on two main issues namely; (1) Whether or not the Harleys had legal standing/locus standi to institute the proceedings? and (2) If so, was Harleys entitled to the orders it had sought in its application?

Continue reading