- Kenya: Senate held a session with reps from the creative industries to understand how to support creativity and talent in the film industry [Web]
- South Africa’s New IP Policy: A Human Rights Perspective [Emmanuel Oke]
- Kenya has created an electronic registry for collateralisation of IP and other rights [The East African]
- “I See a Boat on a River” – The Copying of Vehicular Shapes [Afro-IP]
- Online platform to streamline collection of fees owed to Kenyan musicians [Capital FM]
- Kenya: Artistes, hoteliers in pact to collect music royalties [Business Daily]
- East Africa brand-owners take stake in protecting their brands [Captain Obvious]
- Kenya: Curb book theft without killing firms [DN]
- EA Cables cries for help over Chinese fakes [Nation]
- Kenya: Chinese accused of cultural heist on indigenous cottage industries [Oh Boy]
- Pay artistes’ royalties or lose licences, Sakaja warns media houses, night clubs [The Star]
- Blockchain and IP Law: A Match made in Crypto Heaven? [WIPO Magazine]
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!
The High Court of Kenya sitting at Nakuru has recently handed down an interesting judgment in the case of Republic v Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) & another Ex-Parte Nakuru Municipality Pubs, Bars, Restaurants and Hotel Owners Association (Suing Through Their Trustees)  eKLR. A copy of the judgment is available here. In this case, Nakuru Municipality Pubs, Bars, Restaurants and Hotel Owners Association sought judicial review orders of prohibition to restrain two collective management organisations (CMOs) from collecting licence fees and or levies from the membership of the Association. The CMOs in question: Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP) and Performers Rights Society of Kenya (PRiSK), two related rights CMOs representing owners of sound recordings and performers respectively.
The crux of the Association’s case against the CMOs is as follows:
“It is argued that the proposed levies and licences were never communicated to their association or any of the members, and that as they were not notified, or invited to participate in their formulation and approval nor gazetted/published, the Respondents [CMOs] failed in their duty to communicate the passage and approval of the levies to them, they are in breach of rules of natural justice by withholding information that would affect them economically and financially and a breach of their constitutional rights as enshrined in Article 43 of the Constitution. (…)”