Patent Litigation in Kenya: Lessons from the Sanitam Services East Africa Cases

imgf0001

UPDATE: The Star Newspaper has confirmed the invalidation of Sanitam’s patent no AP 773 in an article published here.

“The [matter] before us focuses on a branch of law which has scanty litigation and therefore minimal jurisprudential corpus in this country, but which has exploded on the world stage since the end of the 19th Century when the international community formed two international unions to promote it – Intellectual Property” – Court of Appeal in Sanitam Services East Africa Limited v Rentokil Limited 2006

IPKenya’s friend and the Chief Patent Examiner at KIPI informs us that the Industrial Property Tribunal has recently made a ruling revoking patent no AP 773 granted to Sanitam Services with respect to is sanitary bin. This brings to conclusion a long and arduous battle fought by Sanitam against several manufacturers since the late 90s to protect its sanitary bin invention.

This blogpost chronicles the various court cases brought by Sanitam both nationally and regionally to assert its patent rights. It is argued that Sanitam has made an enormous contribution to advancing intellectual property law jurisprudence and raising pertinent issues in the area of patent prosecution and litigation.

In 1997, Sanitam alleges that it designed and invented a foot-operated litter/sanitary disposal bin for use in the hygienic storage and disposal of sanitary towels, tampons, surgical dressings, serviettes and other waste material. One of the novel features of the sanitary bin invention claimed by Sanitam is that it has a flap opening to receive the waste and covering the contents inside so that whoever is operating it cannot see the contents inside even when using it and also the odour is minimized by the invention. This invention titled “Foot Operated Sanitary/Litter Bin” (ARIPO patent No AP 773) was granted and issued in October 1999 by the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO).

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v. Anipest Kenya Ltd & Anor Civil Case No. 1898 of 2000, the late Justice Peter John Smithson Hewett sitting in the High Court dismissed a suit filed by Sanitam seeking an injunction to prevent Anipest from carrying out any acts exclusively granted to an owner of a patent under section 36 of the Industrial Property Act of 1989 (now repealed). PJS Hewett’s ruling dated March 2001 is significant as it addresses a major shortcoming in the operationalisation of the repealed Industrial Property Act, namely the absence of the Industrial Property Tribunal over 10 years after the Act came into effect. More significantly, this ruling offers the first critical analysis of Sanitam’s novelty claims in the sanitary bin invention.

The learned judge, reviews the abstract of Sanitam’s abstract and states:

“Assuming as I do, that the ARIPO rules of patentability are the same as or very similar to those of Kenya, I return to the abstract to see what it tells me particularly about novelty.
“A foot operated litter/sanitary disposal bin comprising a container (1)[”:] nothing novel there;
“closeable by a cover (2)”: nothing novel there either:
a disposal lid(3)”-still nothing novel:
“at the top, with the disposal lid being displaceable by a foot operated pedal (4)”: still nothing novel:
“and a lift lever (5)…” nothing novel,
“to move between open and closed positions. The bin is defined such that the user cannot see the contents of the container, waste scavengers cannot have access to the contents, emission of unpleasant odour is reduced and the contents cannot spill out if the bin is overturned.”
I only have to look at this matter prima facie. Are all these attributes prima facie novel. Prima facie they seem to be to me on evidence many many years old: certainly they do not seem to me to be prima facie novel-which is all I have to consider.”

This blogger submits that this finding by the learned judge paved the way for other litigants and manufacturers to question the validity of AP 773 which has now finally culminated in the revocation of the patent by the Industrial Property Tribunal.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd & Anor Civil Suit No. 58 of 1999, Sanitam moved to the High Court orders of permanent injunction to restrain Rentokil Ltd and Kentainers Ltd from manufacturing, selling and distributing the sanitary bins which infringed on its patent. Rentokil and Kentainers contended that they were already manufacturing the product before the plaintiff had obtained a patent over the invention. Therefore they argued that Sanitam could not claim exclusive rights over the product.

In Justice Onyango Otieno’s ruling delivered in May 2002, the court dismissed the Sanitam’s suit holding that it failed to prove that it had obtained a patent over its foot operated sanitary bin. In addition, Sanitam was already distributing its product 2 years prior to the registration of the patent. Therefore Rentokil and Kentainers had not infringed Sanitam’s rights by creating a similar product and obtain a market for it.

This case is significant for at least three main reasons. First and foremost, the court upheld patents granted by ARIPO as valid and enforceable within Kenya pursuant to the latter’s obligations under the ARIPO Protocol.

Secondly, although the court made several obiter dicta remarks regarding the novelty of Sanitam’s bin invention, the court ultimately held that Courts of law must defer to the National Patent Office KIPI and the Regional Patent Office ARIPO on questions pertaining to the patentability of any invention in dispute. According to the court, KIPI and ARIPO are the bodies with the technical know-how to investigate the patentability or otherwise of inventions and that in the present case, one of the two had presumably investigated the invention and found it fit to grant a patent for it. Therefore whoever challenges the grant of any patent must do so before these institutions and not in court.

Finally, the court made an important finding on the burden of proof in matters relating to infringement of industrial property, particularly where the industrial property in question is unregistered. In the case of Sanitam, the court found that since there was no patent in existence at the time a similar bin to Sanitam’s was produced, Sanitam could not claim patent infringement.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2004, Sanitam moved to the highest court in the land (at the time), the Court of Appeal, seeking for the Court to reverse the above decision of the lower court (High Court) in favour of Rentokil. Sanitam’s appeal against the High Court Decision was partially successful as the Court of Appeal granted Sanitam an injunction for the lifetime of the disputed patent AP 773 with effect from 16th December 1999. However the Court of Appeal did not award Sanitam any damages thereby concurring with the High Court’s determination that Sanitam had not discharged the onus of proof.

In 2008, ARIPO published an entry in its Journal to the effect that Sanitam’s patent AP 773 had lapsed for failure to pay annual fees. Soon thereafter, Sanitam brought an appeal against the decision of the ARIPO Patent Office removing its patent from the Register due to non-payment of annual maintenance fees. It was argued that maintenance fees were consistently late since the patent was granted in 1999. The ARIPO Appeal Board concluded that both parties were to blame for the delays in the payments; the Office had failed to send reminders, which it is required to do under the Harare Protocol. Therefore the Office was urged to strictly observe the provisions of the Protocol particularly those pertaining to time limits, information delivery and processing procedures.

Consequently, the Appeal Board ordered the patent be reinstated in respect of the designated states, including Kenya and Uganda.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Bins Nairobi Services Ltd Civil Suit No. 597 of 2007, Sanitam successfully moved the High Court for orders of injunction against Bins restraining the latter from a host of acts alleged to be infringing on Sanitam’s patent AP 773.

The issue for determination by the court was found to be whether Sanitam had established a case to entitle the court to grant the orders of injunction sought. In making this finding, the court reaffirms the earlier position of the High Court in the Rentokil case that the court is not the right institution to question the patentability of any invention in dispute and is bound to respect a patent duly issued by KIPI and/or ARIPO.

Therefore with respect to Sanitam’s onus of proof, the court found that the latter had proved that it had a valid patent ARIPO Patent no. AP 773, which was infringed by Bins through the acts of offering for sale or hire of foot-operated sanitary bins without Sanitam’s authorisation.

In Rentokil Initial Kenya Ltd v Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd Civil Suit No. 702 of 2008, Sanitam successfully defended a suit filed by Rentokil seeking that the former be restrained from threatening, intimidating, harassing, embarassing and confusing Rentokil’s clients and customers over sanitary bins it provides.

Rentokil moved to the High Court after Sanitam wrote letters to the former’s clients warning them to stop using its sanitary bins, which Sanitam considered an infringement of its patent AP 773. Rentokil’s line of reasoning was that it had developed a new bin by changing certain features to distinguish it from Sanitam’s bin registered as AP 773. Therefore Rentokil claimed that by writing letters to its clients, Sanitam was seeking to enforce a patent over a completely different bin.

Sanitam’s defence was simply to focus on its granted patent and prove to the court that Rentokil’s bin was similar to its AP 773. To this end, Sanitam presented an expert report to substantiate that the two bins were similar and that the functionality of Rentokil’s bin was same as that covered under patent AP773.

It is argued that if Rentokil had focussed on Sanitam’s threatening letters rather the differences between its bins and Sanitam’s patent, Rentokil may have been successful with its application for injunction at the Industrial Property Tribunal under section 108 of the Industrial Property Act. This section reads:
“108. (1) Any person threatened with infringement proceedings who can prove that the acts performed or to be performed by him do not constitute infringement of the patent or the registered utility model or industrial design may request the Tribunal to grant an injunction to prohibit such threats and to award damages for financial loss resulting from the threats.”

All in all, this case is instructive to all litigants in industrial property matters to purse their matters with the Industrial Property Tribunal rather than with the High Court, in the first instance.

In Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd v Sanitam Services EA Ltd [2009], the Industrial Property Tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear applications to revoke patents granted by ARIPO. Sanitam challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a preliminary objection stating that section 59 of the Industrial Property Act only incorporates patents granted by ARIPO in relation to their effect in Kenya and that other issues such as revocation and not expressly contemplated in the section.

The section reads as follows:

“59. A patent, in respect of which Kenya is a designated state, granted by ARIPO by virtue of the ARIPO Protocol shall have the same effect in Kenya as a patent granted under this Act except where the Managing Director communicates to ARIPO, in respect of the application thereof, a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol that if a patent is granted by ARIPO, that patent shall have no effect in Kenya.”

Therefore the main issue between the parties was the meaning of the word “effect” in the above section. Sanitam successfully convinced the Tribunal that “effect” simply means “the powers conferred to a right holder by the patent in Kenya”, therefore the only matters the Tribunal can hear related to infringement and compulsory licensing.

This decision by the Industrial Property Tribunal was reversed by the High Court in an ex parte judicial review application heard and determined by Justice Musinga on December 1, 2010. Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd obtained an order to compel the Tribunal to reinstate, hear and determine an application for revocation of ARIPO patent AP 773 filed by Chemserve in 2008.

In Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Tamia Ltd Petition No. 305 of 2012, Sanitam sought reliefs from the court to have Tamia prevented from violating its IP rights over the invention patent no. AP773, including the destruction of all infringing bins in Tamia’s possession. Justice Majanja’s ruling sheds crucial light on the state’s obligations under the Constitution with regards to intellectual property rights under Articles 11 and 40.

The learned judge rightly dismissed Sanitam’s petition with two well-reasoned findings: firstly, the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the State (in this case, KIPI and/or the Industrial Property Tribunal) had failed to honour its obligations under the Constitution. Secondly, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to invoke Article 22 of the Constitution to enforce IP rights since these are “ordinary rights” that can be enforced through the legal mechanisms provided by statute law (in this case the Industrial Property Act).

In Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd v Sanitam Services EA Ltd [2013], the Industrial Property Tribunal rejected Chemserve’s request for the invalidation of Sanitam’s patent no AP 773.
This case is significant as the Tribunal makes several findings on the time period and burden of proof requirements when requesting revocation of a patent.

With regard to the time period requirement to revoke a patent, the Tribunal held that the legislative intent behind section 103 was to prevent a situation where a party becomes aware of a patent, then “literally sits on the right to revoke it until a later date for commercial convenience in the form of damages and accounts for profits”. The Tribunal also noted that Chemserve had failed to file for an extension of time under Rule 33 at the time it filed the request for revocation.

Even if Chemserve had filed its request in a timely manner, the Tribunal held that it had failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish that the patent was invalid. Chemserve argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step and formed part of prior art however it chose not to produce any evidence other than the affidavit and statement by its General Manager!

We are back full circle to 2014, where a recent report indicates that the Industrial Property Tribunal in a ruling made on 21 January 2014 has revoked patent no. AP 773. This blogger will examine this ruling once it is made available to the public.

All in all, it is beyond dispute that the long list of Sanitam cases presented above have in one way or another shaped the landscape of intellectual property litigation in Kenya and in Africa.

Draft Bill Ready For Comments: The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Bill 2013

kenya tk bill 2013

This month was the unveiling of the Protection of Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) Bill, 2013.

The draft Bill is available for download here.

This Bill was adopted by the participants at the National Validation Stakeholders Seminar and the Inter-Ministerial Committee responsible for drafting this Bill are now inviting comments and contributions from stakeholders and members of the public. Please send your comments to the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) at kenyacopyright@gmail.com on or before August 21,2013.

This blogger has looked through the draft Bill and will now make comments on the provisions sequentially.

Title of the Act

The word “protection” conjures up notions of protectionism and conservatism whereby Kenya seeks to jealously guard its TK, whereas it forms part of the common heritage of humanity. The word protection must go hand in hand with words like “promotion” especially in the context of TK and TCEs, since Kenya hopes that its communities will benefit from the exploitation of TK and TCEs by all.

Header

This legislation only gives effect to Article 11 of the Constitution and not Article 40(5). This position is reaffirmed by the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution which provides a time specification of five years from the promulgation date for the legislation in respect to Article 11(3) to be enacted by Parliament.

Definitions

Fundamentally, the definitions of TK and TCEs must be revisited. These definitions refer to both intangible and tangible TK & TCEs objects as protected subject matter.

The definition of appropriate authority appears to have been copy-pasted from an international instrument because of the use of the terms “authorised by the State” and “party to this Act”. It is proposed that the appropriate authority be defined any body or agency created under the Act.

It is proposed that the term “Act” be defined to include the Act itself and any regulations issued by the Cabinet Secretary under it from time to time.

It is noted that the Bill does not provide definitions for “owner”, “holder” which are used interchangeably throughout the Bill. The definition of “beneficiary” is also missing.

It is proposed that the terms: traditional knowledge rights and rights in traditional cultural expressions be defined in respect to the subject matter of protection namely, TK and TCEs respectively.

It is proposed that the term “holder” be included and defined as holder of traditional knowledge rights and rights in traditional cultural expressions. Further, the definition of “owner” would be the communuty representative or proxy delegated by the community to hold the latter’s rights in TK and TCEs. The definition of community could thus remain unchanged

The terms artistic works, cultural creativity, intangible cultural heritage, traditional cultural rights are all superflous and it is proposed that they are deleted.

National Competent Authority

This name totally lacks a descriptive character. The name becomes even more problematic because the national competent authority in the Bill is defined as the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) – whose name is even further removed from the theme of TK and TCEs. It follows that a descriptive name like the National Commission for (Protection of) TK and TCEs would be more fitting.

More fundamentally, issues may be raised about whether KECOBO is fit to be the national competent authority under this Bill. As we know KECOBO is created under the Copyright Act of 2001 and therefore it is not advisable for it to have statutory functions and mandates emanating from a different piece of legislation.

The Bill also creates the National Cultural Agency which is considered to be the implementer of the Bill. However questions may be raised over the need to have two separate government bodies carrying out more or less the same functions under the Bill.

Protection

Section 5 provides the conditions for protection of TK. However this section simply describes the various recognised origins of the protected TK but it fails to provide how TK is to be protected, especially where it is in an intangible or inchoate form.

Formalities

This section states that protection of TK shall not be subject to any formality. However subsections a) and b) appear to appoint KECOBO as “the Registrar of TK”, as it were by providing for registers and records of TK to be maintained and administered by KECOBO. There is therefore need to rethink this section.

More fundamentally, there is need to rethink the position that protection of TK shall not be subject to any formalities. Given the nature of TK, certain formalities may be necessary in order to clearly identify the traditional rights holders while notifying the rest of the world that the TK is both “owned” and “protected”.

Rights conferred to holders of TK

The Bill proposes that rights conferred to TK owners shall depend on whether the TK is a product or a process. For most, this typology appears to have been borrowed from section 54 of Industrial Property Act, 2001. There is need to revisit this provision given that the problematic definition of TK provided by the Bill which includes both tangible and intangible subject-matter.

Traditional Cultural Expressions

This Part VI lists a number of uses of TK or TCEs that would require the prior and informed consent on the traditional owners. However, the sticking point for some remains the issue of tangible vs intangible subject matter. For instance the Bill’s first restriction states “to reproduce the TK or TCEs”. One wonders whether how reproduction of an intangible subject-matter can be proved.

Exceptions and Limitations

This section borrows heavily from the ‘fair dealing’ provisions in section 26 of the Copyright Act, 2001. However this appears to be a closed list that excludes several other important exceptions including public interest. Ideally this list should be general in nature and allow for other exceptions that may arise from time to time.

Moral Rights

Under copyright law, moral rights protect an author’s non-economic interests. In the context of TK and TCEs, moral rights appear to be able to meet some of the needs of holders of TK and TCEs. However the rights to paternity, attribution and integrity all depart from the premise that the subject matter under protection is tangible!

Duration of Protection

This section creates an important distinction between situations where the duration of protection is indefinite and where it is time-bound. However there is a flaw in the criteria for the distinction. The first section seems to relate to collectively owned TK however the protection criteria under section 5 refers to both individually or collectively held TK under 5(2)(d).

In conclusion, this blogger applauds the Inter-Ministerial Committee for coming up with this draft Bill. However, there are some fundamental flaws in the document that must be addressed in order to ensure consistency and practicability. It is contended that intangible TK and TCEs must be protected retrospectively once they are reduced to a material form by or on behalf of the originating traditional community on condition that the latter is recognised by the State as the originating community. The definitional issues in the draft bill would be dealt with once the subject matter of protection for TK and TCEs is both tangibly identifiable and the rights flowing from this protected subject-matter is clearly delineated.

The Bill also fails to recognise the new system of devolution which many have argued would be an important catalyst in Kenya’s efforts to identify, promote and protect TK and TCEs throughout the 47 Counties.

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.

Summary of the Industrial Property Act 2001

The main object of this Act is to provide for the promotion of inventive and innovative activities, to facilitate the acquisition of technology through the grant and regulation of patents, utility models, technovations and industrial designs. Section 3 of the Act establishes the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI).

KIPI is the main implementation and administration agency for industrial property in Kenya. It liaises with other national, regional and transnational intellectual property offices, patent offices and international organizations that are involved in industrial property protection. KIPI’s mandate includes: considering applications for and granting industrial property rights; screening technology transfer agreements and licences; providing to the public industrial property information for technological and economic development; and promoting inventiveness and innovativeness in Kenya.

The Act also establishes the Industrial Property Tribunal to deal with cases of infringement. Section 109 of the Act also criminalises infringement on others patents, registered utility models or industrial designs.

The application forms for patent, industrial design and utility model are available here.
The current fees payable to KIPI for patent, industrial design and utility model applications are available here.

 

Patents and Utility Models under the Industrial Property Act

hippo water roller afrigarnics limited isaiah esipisu

A patent is a legal document granted by a State that secures to the holder, for a limited period, the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the patented subject matter. Any new and useful process, product, composition of matter, or any improvement thereof, may be patented, if such invention meets these three requirements: (1) Novelty; (2) Inventive step i.e must not be obvious to a person of ordinary skills in that field of art, and (3) Industrial applicability.

The following are not patentable:

  • Discoveries or findings that are products or processes of nature, where mankind has not participated in their creations
  • Scientific theories and mathematical methods
  • Schemes, rules or methods of doing businesses or playing games or purely performing mental acts.
  • Methods of treatments of both human and animals by surgery or therapy as well as diagnostic methods practice thereto, except products for use thereof.
  • Inventions contrary to public order, morality, public health and safety, principles of humanity and environmental conservation

 

The steps to be followed for grant of a patent in Kenya are as follows:

8 kosgei kipi 2010

NB: Please note that the fees indicated in the diagram above may not be up-to-date, consult the link in the box above for the current fees.

Industrial Designs under the Industrial Property Act

9 kosgei kipi 2010

An industrial design refers to the ornamental or aesthetic features of a product.  In other words, it refers only to the appearance of a product and NOT the technical or functional aspects.

Any products of industry can be protected as an industrial design including: fashions, handicrafts, technical and medical instruments, watches, jewellery, household products, toys, furniture, electrical appliances, cars; architectural structures; textile designs; sports equipment; packaging; containers and “get–up” of products

The requirements for industrial design protection are: (1) Novelty;  (2) Originality i.e. independently created; and (3) Design must have “individual character” – when overall impression is evaluated against others.

The registration process for an industrial design in Kenya is as follows:

10 kosgei kipi 2010

NB: Please note that the fees indicated in the diagram above may not be up-to-date, consult the link in the box above for the current fees.