More on KIKOY

David Mugonyi, writing from London for the Sunday Nation (print edition), reports that the Kenya government is to apply for registration of the word KIKOY as a trademark. This comes after attempts by a UK company to register the word failed.

Curiously the report indicates that the registration will be done through WTO. How this will be done is rather difficult to understand. For one, WTO does not register Trade marks, and more importantly KIKOY is a descriptive word, and probably the reason why the UK Company failed to defend its case for registration in UK. Against this background, it is difficult to understand how the government which in the first place opposed the registration of the mark on the basis that the word KIKOY connotes nothing else but the name of a Kenyan traditional fabric will be able to argue that it can now serve as a trademark.

Kikoy battle continues

The Daily Nation reports that the attempt by a British Company to register the word KIKOY as trade mark in UK has failed.

This seems to mark the end of the affair which began in 2006 when Kikoy Company UK Limited applied to register the trade work. See an earlier post here.

From the Nation report it does appear that Kikoy Company failed to file a counter statement by the deadline of 7th March 2008, meaning the application for registration was deemed to have been withdrawn.

What is the implication of this outcome?

In my opinion it makes no difference whether KIKOY was registered as a trade mark or not and indeed there are other KIKOYs registered in UK (as pictured above). These registrations have not prevented other people from selling their kikoys in UK as the writer suggests.

To me the writer seems to have got it wrong on a number of issues. First he writes that the Government has not taken steps to protect the fabric. Is there justification for protection? The very essence of objecting to registration in UK is that KIKOY is a description word that should not be monopolized by any particular person, not even in Kenya.

Secondly, he reports that had the Kikoy Company managed to register the trade mark, it would have obtained a virtual monopoly over the use of the word and they would have stopped any other person from selling Kikoys in the UK and elsewhere.

I beg to differ with this observation, for the fact that you cannot have any trade mark rights over a descriptive word. In the first place, it would have been impossible for the Kikoy Company to enforce the trade mark. I believe there are many cases in UK that have resolved that for one to infringe a trade mark, the infringing mark must be used as trademark.

The question is whether any other person selling kikoys in UK would be using the word KIKOY as a trade mark. Kikoy is basically the name of the product and any other person selling the products in UK or Europe could actually argue that their use of the word KIKOY was not in trade mark sense, rather they were trading in goods called KIKOY. For example, assuming some one managed to register the word BREAD as a trade mark in Kenya with respect to bread, the registration would not stop other people from selling their bread in Kenya. To me the registration would be meaningless and the owner would be actually paying rent to the Trade Office registry for worthless protection.

About kikoy here and here.

Landrover Brand shifts gear on the way to Indian

Bloomberg.com reports that Ford Motor Company, the world's third largest car maker, will sell Jaguar and Land Rover to India’s Tata Motors Ltd.

Landrover is famous in Kenya and has for many years been the vehicle of choice for the Police Force. With the shift to India, what will be the implications here? Will our force still show their loyalty to this famous Brand despite the gear shift? It will be a tough choice given that the Mahindra aftertaste still persists in the country.

Kenya in below average performance in Global IP protection Index.

In a report titled International Property Rights Index 2008, by Property Rights Alliance, Kenya is ranked at position 82 on the strength of protecting Intellectual Property Rights.

According to the report, data for the survey was sources from diverse sources, including data supplied by 41 organizations some of who are IP owners. This indeed raises certain questions on the credibility of the data and also about its up-to-dateness. For example the data used to analyze Trade Mark protection was compiled 10 years ago and copyright piracy level is sourced from the USTR 301 watch list!

While Finland is ahead of the pack, surprisingly US occupy position 10 in the index. Interestingly, our neighbours Tanzania and Uganda are not doing so badly compared to Kenya. They are ahead at position 68 and 75 respectively. Not bad, Right?