CASE TITLE: NULEC INDUSTRIES PLC v. DYSON TECHNOLOGIES LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57866(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 13TH MAY, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT)
LEAD JUDGMENT: AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over opposition to the registration of trademarks.
FACTS
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The Appellant made an application to the Registrar of Trademarks for the registration of Air Amplifier, Air Multiplier and Bladeless Fan, as Trademarks. The Trademarks were published in the Trademark Journal on 15/9/2012. Meanwhile, on 7/12/2011, the first Respondent filed a Notice of Opposition to the said registration, and in response, the Appellant filed its Counter-Statements. However, while opposition proceedings were still pending, the Appellant, by an Originating Motion dated 14/2/2013, commenced Suit No. FHC/L/187/2013 at the Federal High Court, praying for the determination of the following questions:
1. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 4(1) & (2) and Sections 12(1) & (2) and Part 1, Second Schedule (items 31 & 43) of the Constitution; the provision of Section 44(5) & (6) of the Trademark Act Cap T 13 LFN 2004 is null and void for the reason of its inconsistency with the forgoing Provisions of the 1999 Constitution; and
2. If the answer to question 1, is in the affirmative, whether the PARIS Convention and the TRIPS Agreement are applicable in Nigeria by virtue of Section 44 of the Trademarks Act, Cap T 13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and
3. If the answer to question 2, is in the negative, whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to, pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement and the PARIS Convention oppose the Application of the Plaintiff to register Trademarks, which 2nd Defendant has accepted to register.
The first Respondent, who was duly served by substituted means, did not file any processes, or put in appearance when the Application was heard. The learned trial Judge, Kurya, J., delivered his ruling, wherein he granted the Reliefs sought.
Dissatisfied, the first Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal and its major complaint was that the learned trial Judge erred when he assumed jurisdiction over the Suit prior to the conclusion of the opposition proceedings before the second Respondent.
In its judgment delivered on 13/6/2017, the Court of Appeal found that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the claim of the Respondent as the Court of first instance. The Court held that the matter could only come to the Federal High Court by way of appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks. The absence of such a decision, therefore, divested the Federal High Court of jurisdiction.
Being dissatisfied the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court determined the appeal based on a sole issue thus:
Whether in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal is right to set aside the decision of the trial Court.
DECISION/HELD
The apex Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- COURT – JURISDICTION: Whether a Court will deny itself jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not expressly ousted by legislation
- COURT – JURISDICTION: When is a Court competent to exercise jurisdiction over a suit
- JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Position of the law on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over matters pertaining to the acceptance of applications for registration of trademarks and oppositions to the registration of trademarks
