Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Jeremy Phillips / nigeria / patent infringement / public policy / One in the eye for INEC as patent trumps elections in Nigeria

One in the eye for INEC as patent trumps elections in Nigeria

- , , ,
Some Bedding is more comfy
than others ... *
Back in December 2010, thanks to some assiduous work by the Kat's friend Kingsley Egbuonu, the blog carried this report on Bedding Holdings v INEC & Others, a most unusual patent injunction saga which pitched the enforcement of intellectual property rights against the public interest in holding fair elections (this case was also covered on Afro-IP here). Via the same enthusiastic source the IPKat has now learned (here, here and here) that the claimant patentee has emerged successful after trial, his Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box patent having been infringed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).  Kingsley adds:
"The 'supposed' copy of the Court’s judgment which was handed down by Adamu Bello J, sitting in the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday 5 June 2012, contains six declarations and a perpetual injunction: the sixth declaration and the injunction may have the combined disastrous effect of nullifying all elections conducted in 2011 and preventing future elections using the claimant's patented products.

While we expect individuals to respect the rights of intellectual property owners, we should also expect the state, agents or those acting in the interest of the state, to do the same. Generally, this is good news for IP owners (especially genuine local innovative and creative companies) but also, though unfortunate, good news for constitutional lawyers in Nigeria as the political chaos this may create is beyond imagination. On the brighter side for IP enthusiasts, this means that the Nigerian government will now become more IP-sensitive in its policy-making. 
We hope the losing party can somehow settle this and/or obtain a licence to bring this matter to an end. Sadly, it has found itself as the weaker party on the bargaining table. 
Kingsley promises a full case commentary on this latest development once he has had the chance to consider the judgment in detail -- and that will appear on the Afro-IP blog.

* Cat bedding by Red Dog Dezigns, here.
One in the eye for INEC as patent trumps elections in Nigeria One in the eye for INEC as patent trumps elections in Nigeria Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, June 15, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousFriday, 15 June 2012 at 11:06:00 GMT+1

    The most interesting fact is that the case was unopposed - there was an order for substituted service (publication in a newspaper and on a notice board in the court building)and the defendants did not appear. It is most odd that the plaintiff was unable to effect personal service on the Registrar of Patents, the Minisrty of Commerce and the INEC. I await the next installment with interest!

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.