Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Kenya: SONY is not well-known
By Janine Hollesen and Donvay Wegierski, Directors
In Sony Corporation vs Sony Holdings Limited the Kenyan High court dismissed the Japanese corporate’s trade mark opposition to trade mark applications filed for SONY in classes outside of those already registered by Sony Corporation, the court finding that it’s SONY mark is not well-known in Kenya. The burden of proof for well-known status therefore remains high, with the courts requiring substantial evidence taking into account a range of factors.
The general principle for Paris convention member countries is that a mark granted well-known status enjoys broader protection than an ordinary mark in that country. Section 15A of the Kenyan Trade Mark Act grants protection to well-known marks in terms of which it is necessary to provide evidence of sufficient knowledge of the mark within the relevant sector. A foreign reputation does not satisfy the criteria as it must be proved that this reputation extends to Kenya.
Even though the Sony Corporation relied on its extensive sport sponsorship and world-wide trade mark registrations for the mark SONY, the court didn’t regard this as proof of repute in Kenya, only accepting evidence of brand value in Kenya which alone did not elevate the SONY trade mark well-known.
If you would like to learn more about Intellectual Property please visit our practice area page.
Latest News
SCA judgments: Capstone & Kluh
In our November 2014 edition of Legalwerks, we discussed the decisions of the Full Bench of the High Court of [...]
Property buyers may be liable for historical debt
In a recent judgement handed down by the Supreme Court of Appeal, the court ruled that a hypothec created by [...]
Remuneration of employees in different provinces
Duma v Minister of Correctional Services & others ISSUE Whether the failure to pay an employee in one [...]
Non-striking employees not to be locked out: limitations of the employer’s right to lock out
Transport and Allied Workers Union of South Africa v PUTCO Limited [2016] ZACC On 8 March 2016, in the [...]
Criminalisation of cartels: a potential cure with side effects
Competition authorities particularly in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia have enacted and entrenched criminal penalties for cartel behaviour. [...]
How to compensate the victims of collusion
In the sphere of competition law, anti-competitive practices can have a detrimental effect on an economy and the performances of [...]

