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
Is a collective agreement valid and binding, despite a dispute as to the authority of those purporting to conclude the agreement?
South African Airways (Soc) Ltd & another v National Transport Movement & others (Case no: J1872/2015, 12 May 2016) [...]
The meaning of the term ‘pay back’ in a settlement agreement
Genrec Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others [2016] ZALCJHB 213 (17 June 2016) ISSUE [...]
The impact of Mitchell judgement on purchases of immovable property from an insolvent estate
In a recent judgement, of City Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v PJ Mitchell (38/2015) (2015) ZASCA, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that [...]
Tread carefully when merging: tribunal imposes massive fine for failure to notify
In the intricate process of acquiring another business or forming a joint venture, firms often forget to check whether the [...]
The duty to disclose business rescue proceedings
On 14 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) in the matter of Umso Construction Proprietary Limited (“Umso”) v MEC [...]
Spotlight on boards and shareholder activism
INTRODUCTION Corporate activism places public pressure on boards to improve both financial and non-financial performance of companies. Non-financial performance [...]

