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!
“I am acutely aware of the far reaching consequences of my conclusive finding that purely constitutional issues and questions have been borne out of a hitherto commercial relationship and hence the court’s jurisdiction rather than agreed mode of dispute resolution. I however do not for a moment view it that the framers of our Constitution intended the rights and obligations defined in our common law, in this regard, the right to freedom of contract, to be the only ones to continue to govern interpersonal relationships.” – Onguto, J at paragraph 101 of the ruling.
A recent well-reasoned ruling by the High Court in the case of Bia Tosha Distributors Limited v Kenya Breweries Limited & 3 others  eKLR tackled the complex question of horizontal application of the Constitution to private commercial disputes governed by contracts with private dispute resolution mechanisms. More interestingly, the court had to consider whether the amount of Kshs. 33,930,000/= paid by the Petitioner to acquire a ‘goodwill’ over certain distribution routes or areas of the Respondents’ products can be defined as ‘property’ held by the Petitioner and as such protected under Article 40 of the Constitution.
Readers of this blog may be aware of the 50-year trade mark battle that has been going on between Lacoste S.A and Crocodile International PTE Ltd (“CIL”). These companies were formed about 10 years apart on opposite corners of the globe: one in France in 1933 and the other in Singapore in 1943. Historically, the battle has focused on Lacoste’s right-facing crocodile mark and CIL’s left-facing crocodile mark with trademark suits filed in numerous jurisdictions around the world.