1.0. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The expression of an idea is often categorised under intellectual property while the protection of the idea expressed is classified as intellectual property rights. For instance, writing of a story is an expression of an idea which can be group

Can The Federal High Court In Nigeria Entertain Passing Off Matters?

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn
  1. introduction
    1. The expression of an idea is often categorised under intellectual property while the protection of the idea expressed is classified as intellectual property rights. For instance, writing of a story is an expression of an idea which can be grouped under copyright as a literary work while the protection attached to it excludes anyone from expressing the same idea without proper credit of the original author. This protection grants the original owner the enjoyment of his work even though used by others. Another idea of commercial value that is worth protecting is a trademark – it is a sign that is used to distinguish the goods or services offered by one undertaking from those offered by another.[1] The protection of this idea is adequately regulated in Nigeria through statutes such as the Copyright Act,[2] the Patents and Designs Act,[3] and the Trade Marks Act,[4] among others.
  1. It is not in doubt that at the height of business competition, parties may want to imitate the good qualities of their fellow competitors. This may lead to some decline in economic prosperity and reputation of a business that has strived to create a market brand for itself. This, however, calls for the regulatory guidance to protect the goodwill of an established market brand that has already acquired a trade mark or trade name.
  1. To seek adequate protection under the relevant law, the tort of passing of readily comes to mind. Essentially, the tort of passing off protects the goodwill (value or reputation) of a prominent business venture. Passing off is similar to trade mark infringement, but it applies to protect unregistered rights associated with a particular business, its goods or services. Passing off actions can be brought in a wide range of situations, including business names and features of “get-up” or “trade dress”.[5]
  1. Briefly, this article considers the definition of passing off using from the laboratory of refined thoughts, the opinions of learned justices within Nigeria (if any) and other common law jurisdictions while the principles of passing off are also examined. Trade mark infringement is distinguished from passing off. Although, there has been an age long controversy on which court has he jurisdiction to entertain actions emanating from passing off. The final part of the article reviews the remedies and defences available in an action for passing off.
  • DEFINITION AND PRINCIPLE OF passing off
    • Passing off is described as unfair competition by misrepresentation or causing confusion/deception.[6] Lord Longdale, in 1842, described passing off as,

“a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man.”[7]

  • Passing off can also is defined as the act or an instance of falsely representing one’s product as that of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers.[8]
  • The main difference is that trade mark infringement deals with registered rights, and registered rights, and passing off with unregistered rights.[9]
  • THE principle of passing off
    • In Nigeria, as elsewhere, the primary purpose underlying the tort of ‘passing-off’ is the protection of an established trade goodwill already acquired by a trade mark or trade name. It presupposes, therefore, that such goodwill must be established by the party alleging infringement.[10] It should be noted that the establishment of goodwill in an action for passing off is not enough. The House of Lords adopted the ‘Trinity Test’,[11] in establishing the ingredients of passing off and the same was applied in the Nigerian case of The Boots Company Limited v. United Niger Imports Limited.[12]
  • To be successful in a claim for passing off, certain ingredients must be added to the flavour of the action as follows:[13]
  • That the use of the name, mark is likely to cause or has caused injury, actual or probable to the goodwill of the plaintiff’s business;
  • That the defendants who are engaged in a common field have used a name, mark, sign so resembling to the plaintiff’s that it is likely or calculated to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of the common customer; and
  • Proof that the name, mark sign which the plaintiff claims ownership has become distinctive of his goods and is regarded by a substantial number of the public or persons involved in a trade in the relevant market as coming from a particular source.
  • jurisdiction matter: federal high court or state high court?
    • The State High Court is established for each state of the federation and adequate provision is made for its composition and jurisdiction.[14] While the establishment, composition and jurisdiction of the Federal High Court are adequately provided for.[15]  It is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction on an action arising from passing off. In addition to the above decision, the TRADE MARK ACT OF 1965 clearly defines court as the Federal High Court. However, would the provisions of the Act supersede that of the Constitution, the answer is negative. This is premised on the ground that the supremacy clause of the Constitution makes all persons and authorities bound by the provisions of the Constitution.[16]

    • The proper forum for instituting an action in passing off seems not to have universal acceptance in Nigeria. The unsettled position arose from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ayman Enterprises Ltd. V. Akuma Industries Ltd.[17] In this case, the Apex court held per Uwais C.J.N as follows:

“It seems to me that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to deal with actions on passing-off depends on the registration of trademarks as provided by Section 3 of the Trademarks Act… where the trademarks unregistered, as in the present case, then the cause of action for passing–off is in common law of tort and can now be brought in a State High Court”

  • The above cited decision of the Apex court received an avalanche of criticisms from members of the bar. However, in a later decision the Supreme Court has pronounced that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of passing off, whether or not the cases arise from registered or unregistered trademarks.[18] The bone of contention here is the interpretation of the SECTION 3 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT 1965 (revised into the Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004).
  • The Apex Court elaborately explained in Patkun Industries Ltd v. Niger Shoes Manufacturing Co. Ltd[19] that  Section 3 of the Trademarks give right of action in passing-off and that the right of action is derived from the Trade Marks and not from the common law.[20] The Court, Per Kabiri-Whyte, J.S.C. state as follows:

“It is not correct to assume that a right of action enacted into a statutory provision is ineffective merely because it has its origin in the common law. That is not so. The common law tort of passing off in respect of other matters still exist, but in respect of trade marks. In this country the right of action of passing-off relating to the infringement of registered Trade Marks is statutory and can be found only in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1965”

  • Similarly, the Supreme Court affirmed the extent of the jurisdiction of Federal High Court in matters relating to Trade Marks and passing off as follows:[21]
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn

“Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution confers on the Federal High Court, jurisdiction to hear and determine not only on matters stipulated in subsection (f), but other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act on the National Assembly. Consequently, the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to only matters contained in the said subsection (f). Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution similarly widens the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court within the purview of the legislative power of the National Assembly. By virtue of Section 251 (1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to any Federal enactment on copyright, patent, design, Trade Marks and passing off e.t.c. the Federal High Court has jurisdiction whether or not the claim for passing-off. The Federal High Court has jurisdiction whether or not the claim arise from infringement of a registered or unregistered trademark.”

  • At this juncture it is necessary to state that, for the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to be activated over passing off related infringements, the trade mark(s) must have been registered. Where such trade mark is not registered, the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This however is the decision in Patkun’s case. The question is what is the current position of the law on the proper venue to institute an action for passing off in Nigeria?
  • As earlier alluded to, the Supreme Court in Omnia (Nig.) Ltd v. Dyke Trade Ltd (supra) has laid to rest where the proper venue is. In that case it held in its operative part that the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of ‘passing off’, and this, whether arising from registered or unregistered trademarks. It is submitted however that this is the correct position of the law as it presently stands in Nigeria today.
  • remedies for action in passing off
    • there are five (5) main reliefs/remedies available to an aggrieved party in an action for passing off. They are; Injunction, Damages, Delivery up for destruction of infringing goods, Anton Pillar Orders and Account for Profit. Each will be summarily explained.
  • Injunction: This is a mandatory order of court prohibiting or suspending the continuous usage of a mark. It is usually the foremost relief sought by an aggrieved party. It acts as a protection mechanism used to stop further usage of the infringing mark pending the outcome of the determination of the case by the court. An order of perpetual injunction is even more lethal to an infringing party for this relief seeks the protection of the court to permanently stop the infringer from using the marl any further.
  • Damages: generally, in cases of this nature, damages usually follow. This is because of the loss of reputation and economic value of the brand of the affected business. Damages in this regard could be general, special or punitive. It also acts as a means to compensate the Plaintiff in an action for Passing off.
  • Delivery up for destruction of infringing goods: The essence of instituting an action in passing off, is to where physical goods identical to the claimants goods are involved, seek an order of court authorising such goods to be destroyed.
  • Anton Pillar Orders: this simply means an order for the inspection and delivery up of infringing materials in the possession or control of an infringer.[22]
  • Account for Profit: All the goods sold during the period of the infringement, the claimant is entitled to all of it.
  • defences available to a defendant in a passing off action
    • There also defences available in a passing off action. The defendant in other to be successful must plead and prove any of the following defences;
  • That the Plaintiff consented to the use of the name, mark, sign or slogan.
  • Dissimilarities in the mark of the plaintiff.
  • Indistinct name, mark, sign and slogan of the plaintiff.
  • That there was Innocent usage of the Plaintiff’s name, mark or sign.
  • That the Plaintiff’s name, mark sign hand slogan has become generic/common place.
  • conclusion
    • The current position of law today is that actions relating to passing off can be instituted at the Federal High Court without any challenge of the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter. More so, the Trade Marks Act is clear on the court that should entertain actions relating to passing off. A litigant who feels aggrieved can successfully file an action for passing off at the Federal High Court. Any objection challenging the institution of such an action may upon the decision of the court on the merits of the application be fruitless on the basis that the court is empowered in our laws to entertain such an action.

[1] Trademark, Module 4: Trademarks, (WIPO) p.3.

[2] Cap c28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[3] Cap P2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[4] Cap T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[5] What is passing off?, https://www.clarkewillmott.com/legal-services/intellectual-property-lawyers/passing-off/ accessed February 8, 2019.

[6] An Appraisal of passing off Actions Under Nigerian Law, (Mondaq, June 5, 2018), accessed www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/x/704160/Trademark/An+Appraisal+Of+Passing+Off+Actions+Under+Nigerian+Law January 8, 2019.

[7] Perry v. Truefitt, (1842) 6 Beav. 66. See also, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Perry-v-Truefitt accessed February 8, 2019.

[8] Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition.

[9] Id, supra note 5.

[10] Trademark Infringement: Suing For ‘Passing-Off’ In Nigerian Courts, Templars IP Newsletter, https://www.templars-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Trademark-Infringement.pdf accessed January 8, 2019.

[11] Reckitt and Coleman Products v Borden (1990) 1 AER 873.

[12] (1977) 1 A.N.S.L.R 144.

[13] Id.

[14] Sections 270, 271, 272, 273, and 274 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[15] Sections 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, and 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[16] Section 1 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[17] (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 22.

[18] Omnia (Nig.) Ltd v. Dyke Trade Ltd (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576.

[19] (1988) NWLR (Pt.93) 138.

[20] Ufuoma Akpotaire, A peek into six passing-off cases in Nigeria, (NLIP Watch, September 22, 2013) https://nlipw.com/a-peek-into-pssing-off-cases-in-nigeria/ accessed February 8, 2019.

[21]Id, supra note 18.

[22] Feredo Ltd. V. Ibeto Ind. Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 866) 317.

ed under copyright as a literary work while the protection attached to it excludes anyone from expressing the same idea without proper credit of the original author. This protection grants the original owner the enjoyment of his work even though used by others. Another idea of commercial value that is worth protecting is a trademark – it is a sign that is used to distinguish the goods or services offered by one undertaking from those offered by another. The protection of this idea is adequately regulated in Nigeria through statutes such as the Copyright Act, the Patents and Designs Act, and the Trade Marks Act, among others.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn

1.2. It is not in doubt that at the height of business competition, parties may want to imitate the good qualities of their fellow competitors. This may lead to some decline in economic prosperity and reputation of a business that has strived to create a market brand for itself. This, however, calls for the regulatory guidance to protect the goodwill of an established market brand that has already acquired a trade mark or trade name.

1.3. To seek adequate protection under the relevant law, the tort of passing of readily comes to mind. Essentially, the tort of passing off protects the goodwill (value or reputation) of a prominent business venture. Passing off is similar to trade mark infringement, but it applies to protect unregistered rights associated with a particular business, its goods or services. Passing off actions can be brought in a wide range of situations, including business names and features of “get-up” or “trade dress”.

1.4. Briefly, this article considers the definition of passing off using from the laboratory of refined thoughts, the opinions of learned justices within Nigeria (if any) and other common law jurisdictions while the principles of passing off are also examined. Trade mark infringement is distinguished from passing off. Although, there has been an age long controversy on which court has he jurisdiction to entertain actions emanating from passing off. The final part of the article reviews the remedies and defences available in an action for passing off.

2.0. DEFINITION AND PRINCIPLE OF PASSING OFF
2.1. Passing off is described as unfair competition by misrepresentation or causing confusion/deception. Lord Longdale, in 1842, described passing off as,

“a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man.”

2.2. Passing off can also is defined as the act or an instance of falsely representing one’s product as that of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers.

2.3. The main difference is that trade mark infringement deals with registered rights, and registered rights, and passing off with unregistered rights.

3.0. THE PRINCIPLE OF PASSING OFF
3.1. In Nigeria, as elsewhere, the primary purpose underlying the tort of ‘passing-off’ is the protection of an established trade goodwill already acquired by a trade mark or trade name. It presupposes, therefore, that such goodwill must be established by the party alleging infringement. It should be noted that the establishment of goodwill in an action for passing off is not enough. The House of Lords adopted the ‘Trinity Test’, in establishing the ingredients of passing off and the same was applied in the Nigerian case of THE BOOTS COMPANY LIMITED V. UNITED NIGER IMPORTS LIMITED.

3.2. To be successful in a claim for passing off, certain ingredients must be added to the flavour of the action as follows:
a. That the use of the name, mark is likely to cause or has caused injury, actual or probable to the goodwill of the plaintiff’s business;

b. That the defendants who are engaged in a common field have used a name, mark, sign so resembling to the plaintiff’s that it is likely or calculated to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of the common customer; and

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn

c. Proof that the name, mark sign which the plaintiff claims ownership has become distinctive of his goods and is regarded by a substantial number of the public or persons involved in a trade in the relevant market as coming from a particular source.

4.0. JURISDICTION : FEDERAL HIGH COURT OR STATE HIGH COURT?
4.1. The State High Court is established for each state of the federation and adequate provision is made for its composition and jurisdiction. While the establishment, composition and jurisdiction of the Federal High Court are adequately provided for. It is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction on an action arising from passing off. In addition to the above decision, the TRADE MARK ACT OF 1965 clearly defines court as the Federal High Court. However, would the provisions of the Act supersede that of the Constitution, the answer is negative. This is premised on the ground that the supremacy clause of the Constitution makes all persons and authorities bound by the provisions of the Constitution.

4.2. The proper forum for instituting an action in passing off seems not to have universal acceptance in Nigeria. The unsettled position arose from the decision of the Supreme Court in AYMAN ENTERPRISES LTD. V. AKUMA INDUSTRIES LTD. In this case, the Apex court held per Uwais C.J.N as follows:
“It seems to me that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to deal with actions on passing-off depends on the registration of trademarks as provided by Section 3 of the Trademarks Act… where the trademarks unregistered, as in the present case, then the cause of action for passing–off is in common law of tort and can now be brought in a State High Court”
4.3. The above cited decision of the Apex court received an avalanche of criticisms from members of the bar. However, in a later decision the Supreme Court has pronounced that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of passing off, whether or not the cases arise from registered or unregistered trademarks. The bone of contention here is the interpretation of the SECTION 3 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT 1965 (revised into the Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004).

4.4. The Apex Court elaborately explained in PATKUN INDUSTRIES LTD V. NIGER SHOES MANUFACTURING CO. LTD that Section 3 of the Trademarks give right of action in passing-off and that the right of action is derived from the Trade Marks and not from the common law. The Court, Per Kabiri-Whyte, J.S.C. state as follows:
“It is not correct to assume that a right of action enacted into a statutory provision is ineffective merely because it has its origin in the common law. That is not so. The common law tort of passing off in respect of other matters still exist, but in respect of trade marks. In this country the right of action of passing-off relating to the infringement of registered Trade Marks is statutory and can be found only in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1965”
4.5. Similarly, the Supreme Court affirmed the extent of the jurisdiction of Federal High Court in matters relating to Trade Marks and passing off as follows:
Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution confers on the Federal High Court, jurisdiction to hear and determine not only on matters stipulated in subsection (f), but other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act on the National Assembly. Consequently, the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to only matters contained in the said subsection (f). Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution similarly widens the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court within the purview of the legislative power of the National Assembly. By virtue of Section 251 (1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to any Federal enactment on copyright, patent, design, Trade Marks and passing off e.t.c. the Federal High Court has jurisdiction whether or not the claim for passing-off. The Federal High Court has jurisdiction whether or not the claim arise from infringement of a registered or unregistered trademark.”
4.6. At this juncture it is necessary to state that, for the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to be activated over passing off related infringements, the trade mark(s) must have been registered. Where such trade mark is not registered, the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This however is the decision in Patkun’s case. The question is what is the current position of the law on the proper venue to institute an action for passing off in Nigeria?

4.7. As earlier alluded to, the Supreme Court in OMNIA (NIG.) LTD V. DYKE TRADE LTD (SUPRA) has laid to rest where the proper venue is. In that case it held in its operative part that the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine cases of ‘passing off’, and this, whether arising from registered or unregistered trademarks. It is submitted however that this is the correct position of the law as it presently stands in Nigeria today.

5.0. REMEDIES FOR ACTION IN PASSING OFF
5.1. There are five (5) main reliefs/remedies available to an aggrieved party in an action for passing off. They are; Injunction, Damages, Delivery up for destruction of infringing goods, Anton Pillar Orders and Account for Profit. Each will be summarily explained.

5.2. INJUNCTION: This is a mandatory order of court prohibiting or suspending the continuous usage of a mark. It is usually the foremost relief sought by an aggrieved party. It acts as a protection mechanism used to stop further usage of the infringing mark pending the outcome of the determination of the case by the court. An order of perpetual injunction is even more lethal to an infringing party for this relief seeks the protection of the court to permanently stop the infringer from using the marl any further.

5.3. DAMAGES: generally, in cases of this nature, damages usually follow. This is because of the loss of reputation and economic value of the brand of the affected business. Damages in this regard could be general, special or punitive. It also acts as a means to compensate the Plaintiff in an action for Passing off.

5.4. DELIVERY UP FOR DESTRUCTION OF INFRINGING GOODS: The essence of instituting an action in passing off, is to where physical goods identical to the claimants goods are involved, seek an order of court authorising such goods to be destroyed.

5.5. ANTON PILLAR ORDERS: this simply means an order for the inspection and delivery up of infringing materials in the possession or control of an infringer.

5.6. ACCOUNT FOR PROFIT: All the goods sold during the period of the infringement, the claimant is entitled to all of it.

6.0. DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO A DEFENDANT IN A PASSING OFF ACTION
6.1. There also defences available in a passing off action. The defendant in other to be successful must plead and prove any of the following defences;
a. That the Plaintiff consented to the use of the name, mark, sign or slogan.
b. Dissimilarities in the mark of the plaintiff.
c. Indistinct name, mark, sign and slogan of the plaintiff.
d. That there was Innocent usage of the Plaintiff’s name, mark or sign.
e. That the Plaintiff’s name, mark sign hand slogan has become generic/common place.

7.0. CONCLUSION
7.1. The current position of law today is that actions relating to passing off can be instituted at the Federal High Court without any challenge of the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter. More so, the Trade Marks Act is clear on the court that should entertain actions relating to passing off. A litigant who feels aggrieved can successfully file an action for passing off at the Federal High Court. Any objection challenging the institution of such an action may upon the decision of the court on the merits of the application be fruitless on the basis that the court is empowered in our laws to entertain such an action.

[1] Trade

[1] Trademark, Module 4: Trademarks, (WIPO) p.3.

[1] Cap c28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[1] Cap P2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[1] Cap T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[1] What is passing off?, https://www.clarkewillmott.com/legal-services/intellectual-property-lawyers/passing-off/ accessed February 8, 2019.

[1] An Appraisal of passing off Actions Under Nigerian Law, (Mondaq, June 5, 2018), accessed www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/x/704160/Trademark/An+Appraisal+Of+Passing+Off+Actions+Under+Nigerian+Law January 8, 2019.

[1] Perry v. Truefitt, (1842) 6 Beav. 66. See also, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Perry-v-Truefitt accessed February 8, 2019.

[1] Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition.

[1] Id, supra note 5.

[1] Trademark Infringement: Suing For ‘Passing-Off’ In Nigerian Courts, Templars IP Newsletter, https://www.templars-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Trademark-Infringement.pdf accessed January 8, 2019.

[1] Reckitt and Coleman Products v Borden (1990) 1 AER 873.

[1] (1977) 1 A.N.S.L.R 144.

[1] Id.

[1] Sections 270, 271, 272, 273, and 274 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[1] Sections 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, and 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[1] Section 1 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[1] (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 22.

[1] Omnia (Nig.) Ltd v. Dyke Trade Ltd (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576.

[1] (1988) NWLR (Pt.93) 138.

[1] Ufuoma Akpotaire, A peek into six passing-off cases in Nigeria, (NLIP Watch, September 22, 2013) https://nlipw.com/a-peek-into-pssing-off-cases-in-nigeria/ accessed February 8, 2019.

[1]Id, supra note 18.

[1] Feredo Ltd. V. Ibeto Ind. Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 866) 317.

mark, Module 4: Trademarks, (WIPO) p.3.

[1] Cap c28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[1] Cap P2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[1] Cap T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[1] What is passing off?, https://www.clarkewillmott.com/legal-services/intellectual-property-lawyers/passing-off/ accessed February 8, 2019.

[1] An Appraisal of passing off Actions Under Nigerian Law, (Mondaq, June 5, 2018), accessed www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/x/704160/Trademark/An+Appraisal+Of+Passing+Off+Actions+Under+Nigerian+Law January 8, 2019.

[1] Perry v. Truefitt, (1842) 6 Beav. 66. See also, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Perry-v-Truefitt accessed February 8, 2019.

[1] Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition.

[1] Id, supra note 5.

[1] Trademark Infringement: Suing For ‘Passing-Off’ In Nigerian Courts, Templars IP Newsletter, https://www.templars-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Trademark-Infringement.pdf accessed January 8, 2019.

[1] Reckitt and Coleman Products v Borden (1990) 1 AER 873.

[1] (1977) 1 A.N.S.L.R 144.

[1] Id.

[1] Sections 270, 271, 272, 273, and 274 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[1] Sections 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, and 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[1] Section 1 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

[1] (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 22.

[1] Omnia (Nig.) Ltd v. Dyke Trade Ltd (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576.

[1] (1988) NWLR (Pt.93) 138.

[1] Ufuoma Akpotaire, A peek into six passing-off cases in Nigeria, (NLIP Watch, September 22, 2013) https://nlipw.com/a-peek-into-pssing-off-cases-in-nigeria/ accessed February 8, 2019.

[1]Id, supra note 18.

[1] Feredo Ltd. V. Ibeto Ind. Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 866) 317.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Gmail
  • LinkedIn

Damilola Odumosu is a legal practitioner driven by a passion for technology law and its contribution to the legal profession around the world. He currently works as an associate at the law firm of Tayo Oyetibo LP

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Share This

Share this post with your friends!