Infusion Lawyers: Can a registered trademark be lost?

Infusion Lawyers: Can a registered trademark be lost?

Dear IP ABC

My name is Theophilus. I have a friend Oluwanifemi whose brand name Glowbal Makeovers has become quite a household name in my state, Ogun State. Oluwanifemi has customers from within and outside the state capital where her business is based. Recently, she was contacted by a competitor Marian Makeovers who wanted to purchase her brand name ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ for N1 million. Oluwanifemi turned down the offer. During negotiations, Marian Makeovers mentioned that Oluwanifemi might lose the trademark ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ anyway, thus making it a good call for her to sell the brand without delay. Now, Oluwanifemi is worried. She is wondering how true Marian Makeovers’ claim is. Can a registered trademark be lost?

Answer
Dear Theophilus
The answer is YES, Oluwanifemi may lose her registered trademark ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ but only on certain grounds, including abandonment or non-use, genericide, or deception, fraud, or misrepresentation. In the absence of these grounds, the answer is NO.
Under trademark law, a trademark owner may lose his or her registered trademark after it has been taken off the trademark register in respect of any of the goods or services for which it was registered.
 
The first and most common ground by which a trademark can be lost is abandonment or non-use.
A proprietor may lose his or her registered trademark due to abandonment or non-use.
Under section 31 of Nigeria’s Trade Marks Act, a registered trademark may be taken off the register in respect of any of the goods or services for which it is registered. This removal may be triggered by any person through an application to the Federal High Court on either of two grounds:
  1. That the trade mark was registered without any bona fide or genuine intention on the part of the applicant to use the mark in relation to goods or services for which the trade mark was registered and there has in fact been no bona fide use of the trademark in relation to those goods or services by such proprietor from inception up to one month before the date of application to remove the mark from the register; or
  2. That up to the date which is one month before the date of the application a continuous period of five years or longer elapsed during which the trademark was a registered trade mark and during which there was no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services by any proprietor for the time being.
Therefore, as long as Oluwanifemi’s Glowbal Makeovers is still in business, there is no way it can be removed from the register.
By the way,  non-renewal of a registered trademark is a way for one to lose his or her trademark.

What does the phrase ‘bona fide use’ of a trademark really mean?
Bona fide use’ means genuine use. This genuine use is determined by commercial standards. Use for illegitimate or undue purposes⁠—such as for example to prevent another proprietor from registering a trademark which is distinctively associated with that proprietor⁠—is not bona fide use.
This is why a registered trademark will not be removed from the register for non-use when such non-use is due to special circumstances in the trade. But if non-use is a result of any bogus, fake, or insincere intention of the proprietor, the registered trademark would be due for removal.
Since Oluwanifemi is genuinely using ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ as a trademark of her thriving makeover business, Marian Makeovers’ claim that Oluwanifemi would lose her trademark sooner or later is untenable.

A second major ground by which a trademark can be lost is when it becomes a generic mark and this happens in two ways.
If a trademark becomes generic, a court of law—upon application by any person—may decide that the trademark has lost its inherent distinctiveness or it was not distinctive in the first place.
First, a word is inherently and originally generic when the word merely describes a class of goods or services, thus rendering it ineligible for trademark protection. For example, words such as ‘sauna, ‘smartphone’, or ‘pen’ are generic terms. As far as the classes they describe are concerned, they are ineligible for trademark protection of goods or services in those classes. ‘Sauna’, ‘smartphone’, or ‘pen’ may be used to distinctively identity goods or services that do not belong to the classes they describe. Good examples of this are ‘Apple’ and ‘Orange’, distinctively known as technology companies. How does this work? Neither Apple nor Orange is in fruit business, the class their names describe.  
Second, an originally distinctive word registered as a trademark can lose its distinctiveness, thus becoming generic and consequently losing trademark protection. This happens if consumers or the members of the public begin to use the word to describe the goods or service. Common examples such generic words include Aspirin, Escalator, etc. Recently, ‘Google’ was at the brink of becoming generic. When an originally distinctive trademark loses its distinctiveness, the trademark dies. It dies because with distinctiveness lost, consumers or members of the public are no longer able to identify the source of the goods or services. Now generic, the trademark becomes a term that merely describes a class of goods or services.
Though Oluwanifemi’s ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ has become well known in the market, it does not become generic until consumers or members of the public begin to use ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ to describe the goods or services, rather than to identify it or distinguish it from other makeover goods or services. Has ‘Glowbal Makeovers’ attained this level. It doesn’t seem so.
By the way, when a trademark becomes generic, the trademark proprietor does not necessarily lose the right to his or her brand name. Rather, the proprietor loses the right to sue others for using the brand name. In other words, he or she no longer enjoy exclusivity.

A third ground by which a trademark can be lost is when there is deception, fraud, or misrepresentation


When a trademark is found to be deceptive—i.e. likely to deceive or cause confusion—it is a strong basis for removal from the trademark register.
Also, when a trademark proprietor commits fraud or misrepresents material or relevant facts to the registry at the point of applying for the registration of the trademark, the registered trademark may be removed.
Since neither deception nor fraud is the case with Glowbal Makeovers, removal of the trademark from the register is most unlikely.

Wrapping Up

Despite trademark registration, ‘Glowbal Makeover’ trademark may be lost (i) if it has not been used for a certain period of time; (ii) if it has become generic; or (iii) if it involves deception, fraud, or misrepresentation. To avoid the tragedy of losing a trademark or watching a trademark die especially after investing so much to build the brand, brand owners should ensure that they consult an IP lawyer or law firm for legal advice on steps to take. Oluwanifemi should make that call.
Best wishes
IP ABC
www.infusionlawyers.com 
TCCP Partners With Publishers Of Erudite Judgements Of The Supreme Court (EJSC) To Give Conferees Free 500 Supreme Court Judgement

TCCP Partners With Publishers Of Erudite Judgements Of The Supreme Court (EJSC) To Give Conferees Free 500 Supreme Court Judgement

As part of measures to ensure that the 2019 Annual General Conference lives up to its billing as a world-class Conference and ensure that delegates are
FACING THE FUTURE, the Technical Committee for the Conference Planning has firmed up partnership with one of Nigeria’s Law publishers, Legal Jurisprudence Ltd, the publishers of Erudite Judgments of the Supreme Court (EJSC) to give 500 soft copies of
up to date and reported Supreme court judgments FREE of charge to all confirmed delegates at the 2019 Nigerian Bar Association 2019 Annual General Conference,
WHO REGISTER FOR THE EARLY BIRD.

 Delegates would be required to bring their laptops, tablets, iPads and Android devices to the EJSC’s pavillion at the Friendship Centre located at Harbour Point, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Isaac Ogba Esq. the Editor-in-chief of EJSC (who is also the Chairman of NBA, Ota branch) and the EJSC crew would be happy to upload the 500 Supreme Court judgments into electronic devices provided by delegates that visit
its stand.
Kunle Edun

Chairman,
TCCP Media and Publicity Sub-Committee.

Nigerian Bar Association Raises Two Urgent Issues On The State Of The Nation

Nigerian Bar Association Raises Two Urgent Issues On The State Of The Nation

The
Nigerian Bar Association adopted the Address of the President of the Nigerian
Bar Association at the National Executive Committee meeting of the NBA held on
20th June, 2019 as the position of the Nigerian Bar Association on
the state of the nation. 

In
his address, the President of the NBA, Paul Usoro, SAN,
raised two critical
issues of urgency that personally affected all lawyers and Nigerians, no matter
our regions of origin, religion, stations in life or professions. According to
the President, the first is the issue relates to the security of lives and
property or more correctly, the pervasive insecurity of lives and property in
our land. To shed light on the statement he related the tragic events of three
colleagues, Honourable Kennedy Ofuezuem Amin Nwashindi of Asaba Branch; Frank
Promise Igwe of Port Harcourt Branch and Lowuruga Obadiah Yabura of Wukari
Branch, who had been kidnapped and killed by their abductors or in the case of
Frank Igwe who was assassinated in broad day light.
The
second issue is on what the NBA President termed as the twin “independence
pillars” of the rule of law – i.e. independence of the judiciary and
independence of the legal profession.   Mr. Usoro also mentioned the
penchant of government authorities to disobey court orders and the various
bottlenecks that encumber and inhibit access to justice by the citizens. With a
focus particularly on the independence of the judiciary which means not only
the independence of tenure and control of funds but also the latitude to have
an independent and uncontrolled mind to reach decisions and dispense justice
fairly to all manner of men without fear or favor.
There
has been continuous outcry for the enforcement of the provisions of the Nigerian
Constitution that provide for the autonomy of the Judiciary but State
Executives continue to prefer controlling the purse of the Executive and using
that as a form of control over the arm of government. According to Mr. Usoro,
SAN, Judges are threatened, intimidated and blackmailed mostly by the executive
arms of government and their agencies both at the Federal and State levels.
According
to the NBA President, “the robustness of the judiciary lies, not only in the
soundness of its judgments but in the inherent right of judges to dissent even
amongst themselves and to make independent judgments.  If Judges can
dissent amongst themselves, then it should be expected and it is a right that
inheres in the office for Their Lordships to dissent from the opinions, wishes
and thinking of State officials, whether at the Federal or State Governments.”
The
President also charged members of the Bar and fellow citizens when he said “the
government must guarantee and we – the Bar and the Bench – must rise up to
protect the independence of the judiciary and the right of our judicial
officers to have independent minds in the discharge of their onerous
responsibilities. We would, by so doing, be promoting and protecting the Rule
of Law in our land.”
The
2nd part of the 2ndsecond issue addressed by the NBA
President is also the independence of the Bar. According to him, lawyers have
also begun to feel intimidated and are unable to truly practice their
profession without fear of being labelled “Anti – Government”.
The
two issues raised have profound impact and effect on how society
operates.  Without the rule of law and security of lives and property,
society gradually descends into a state of anarchy and democracy becomes a mere
pretension.  Democracy itself cannot survive without the rule of law.
It
is important that that the government and the people pay attention to the
issues raised in the NBA President’s address as they speak to our collective
freedoms and security as a people.
Legalnaija
State Of The Nation: Address By The NBA President At The NBA National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting

State Of The Nation: Address By The NBA President At The NBA National Executive Committee (NEC) Meeting

Text of the address of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association at the National Executive Committee meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association.
This address was duly adopted by the National Executive Committee as the position of the Nigerian Bar Association on the state of the nation.

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(“NBA”) PAUL USORO, SAN DELIVERED AT THE NBA NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
(“NEC”) MEETING HOLDEN AT  THE NBA
SECRETARIAT IN ABUJA ON 20 JUNE 2019

My Dear Colleagues

It is my privilege and honor to welcome you
to the 2018/2019 Quarter 3 NEC meeting of our great Association.  We thank the Almighty for journey mercies
from our various destinations and we pray that He continues to envelop us in
His protective arms and grant us wisdom for today’s deliberations.  It is perhaps not by coincidence that we are
holding this meeting only weeks after the winners of the 2019 National
Elections at the Federal and States levels were sworn into office on 29 May 2019
and after the celebration of our Democracy Day on June 12, 2019.  While we congratulate the newly sworn in
elected officials, it behooves us, as an Association of Learned Men and Women,
to hold them to account and constantly remind them of their pact with the
Nigerian people.  In that regard, I crave
your indulgence to raise two critical issues of urgency that affect us personally
and as Nigerians, no matter our regions of origin, religion, stations in life
or professions.




The first is the issue of security of lives
and property or more correctly, the pervasive insecurity of lives and property
in our land. To make the point, I will relate to you the events concerning
three of our colleagues, Honourable Kennedy Ofuezuem Amin Nwashindi of Asaba
Branch, Frank Promise Igwe of Port Harcourt Branch and Lowuruga Obadiah Yabura
of Wukari Branch.  Kennedy was kidnapped
by armed hoodlums at the gate of his home in Asaba on 16 April 2019 at about
1903 hours.  

He was kidnapped with his wig and gown which
tells one that the kidnappers knew him to be a lawyer but were not deterred
howsoever.  Kennedy’s abductors, in the all-too-familiar
practice of kidnappers in our land, named their ransom price in exchange for
his life.  His family promptly rallied round
and paid the ransom in the expectation of receiving back their husband, son,
father, uncle and brother.  But that was
not to be.  Kennedy was killed by his
abductors after receiving the ransom and his body and his wig, without the
gown, were recovered from the scene of the gruesome murder.

Kennedy would have turned 54 on 24 July but for
his assassination.   He had garnered 18
years Post-Call experience as a lawyer having been called to the Bar on 23
January 2001.  In short, Kennedy was at
the prime of his life, full of hope and promise for his community, our country
and our profession.  I spoke with his
widow, Omosetemi, our colleague as well, on Tuesday, 18 June 2019 and my heart
bled not just for Kennedy’s family but for our society.  Temi did not only lose a husband, she lost a
friend, a confidant, a brother, a protector, a shield and the father of their 4
children – the oldest being 15 and the youngest 9.  It is difficult for us to imagine the
pains and trauma of Kennedy’s immediate
family.
  Temi struggles to understand and
decipher why Kennedy was killed by his abductors, despite the payment of the ransom.
  I personally wonder where our governments –
and these include but goes beyond our law enforcement agencies – were while Kennedy
was being murdered and the hopes and aspirations of his family and children
destroyed.
  Where were our governments?  Why are the governments, complete with their
security apparatchik, so helpless in the face of intruding anarchy in our land?

I now turn to our colleague, Frank Promise
Igwe of Port Harcourt Branch, a

young man with quite some promise.  Promise was born 45 years ago and was called to
the Nigerian Bar in 2006. On 12 April 2019, Promise was dressed for and on his way
to Court when his car was intercepted by criminal elements who shot him dead, in
broad daylight, in the morning hours, in the city of Port Harcourt.  Promise’s life, with the promise that he held
for his community, society and our profession, was cut short.  How does one begin to console Promise’s aged
mother who survived his son? 

How does one explain the murder of Promise to
his two daughters and his wife?  How does
one explain to Promise’s family that governments have primary responsibility for
the security of lives and property?  Why
are our governments failing us in the discharge of these crucial
responsibilities?  Why are we all so
helpless?




Our third colleague, Lowuruga Obadiah Yabura,
was the former Chairman of our Wukari Branch. 
We cannot say whether Yabura is alive or dead.  He has not been seen since he was kidnapped
along Wukari-Takum Road in Taraba State on 02 April 2019.  Not unlike Kennedy’s case, ransom was paid
for Yabura’s life.  Indeed, so
indescribably daring were his abductors, I am told, they set up a bank account where
ransom price was paid into, in instalments and drips and the amounts were fully
drawn by the criminals.  Do you blame the
family?  No, I cannot.  In my function as the President of the NBA, I
have so very often spoken with families of our kidnapped colleagues and almost
always, there is always that dread of fully involving

law enforcement agencies for a number of
reasons.  And so, it is not uncommon for the
families to rely on self-help by paying ransom prices and scrupulously
following the instructions of the criminals in the hope – which, as we all
know, dies last – that their son, their breadwinner, their father, their
husband, their brother would eventually be released.  In the case of Kennedy, that never
happened.  In the case of Yabura, his
abductors are not even communicating with anyone anymore and we have no way of
knowing whether he is still alive or dead. 
Again, how do we explain this to his family and dependents?  How do we explain the disappearance, without trace,
of this our former Chairman who was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1986? 

Where is the responsibility of our
governments in securing lives and property?

 My
dear colleagues, as you would observe, I have given you three illustrative instances
of the insecurity that pervades our land from the three NBA Nigerian Zones –
East, West and North – and that, by itself, makes the point that no part of our
country is safe.  Just yesterday, 19 June
2019, The Nigerian Guardian newspaper reported that the United Kingdom had
issued travel advisory warning against travels to 21 States in Nigeria.  In the South West region of Nigeria, it has
been reported in the last couple of days that the son of the immediate past
Minister of Health was kidnapped.  No
region is safe, and no tribe is safe.  No
one indeed is safe.  And yet, we have
governments in place, at the Federal, State and Local Government levels and the
primary business of governments is the protection of lives and property.  Indeed, without security of lives and
property, everything else grinds to a halt. 
As the saying goes, “safety first”. 
Only those who are alive can enjoy medi-care, educational facilities,
infrastructure renewal, economic boom and all the other tangible and intangible
benefits of a democratic society.  And,
by the way, not to be forgotten or diminished by our politicians in power is
the fact that only those who are alive can vote in the next election.  Only those who are alive can trigger boom and
prosperity in our economy.  Only those
who are alive can benefit from and applaud the government for the war against
corruption.  It is therefore in the
interest of the government as much as it is in the interest of the governed for
lives and property to be secured and safe. 
We therefore demand from our governments at all levels this basic
minimum of their debt to us, to wit, security of lives and property in the
land.

The second issue that I must address is the state
of the rule of law in our land.  I must
state that, in my respectful opinion, the rule of law lies prostrate in our land
in quite some ways and areas.  We could,
for example, talk about the penchant of our governmental authorities to disobey
court orders and also the various bottlenecks and glitches that encumber and
inhibit access to justice by the citizens of our country.  These are indeed areas that cry for attention
and we would continue to focus on these and other troubling areas.  However, my focus in this Address is on what I
term as the twin “independence pillars” of the rule of law – i.e. independence
of the judiciary and independence of the legal profession.  

I start with the independence of the
judiciary which we all understand to mean not only the independence of tenure
and control of funds but also the latitude to have an independent and
uncontrolled mind to reach decisions and dispense justice fairly to all manner
of men without fear or favor.  Not many
if anyone in this auditorium would doubt that our Judges, from the lowest to
the highest cadre, today operate under an oppressive and pervasive climate of
fear and insecurity.  Our Judges are
threatened, intimidated and blackmailed mostly by the executive arms of government
and their agencies both at the Federal and State levels.  Ask any Counsel of note who will be willing
to honestly share his or her experience with you these days and you would be
told that a significant consideration in planning the strategy for the
prosecution of any case that the government, notably the Federal Government has
an interest in, is the concern whether the presiding judge has the backbone and
fiber not to be looking continually behind his or her shoulder to decipher how
the government wishes the matter to be determined.  


There is the pervasive concern that
government and its security operatives

have dossiers on judges, real or imagined,
and could unleash inquisitorial terror on judges if they decide issues against
governments and its agencies.  Even those
of our judges who are whistle-clean – and I believe that most even if not all
are – may not be willing to go through the inquisitorial processes of the
various security agencies to prove their innocence.  And so, we have Judges literally walking on
egg-shells, notably, where governments and their agencies have interest in
matters that they adjudicate upon.   This
state of affairs totally undermines the independence of the judiciary and the
ability of the Judges to act confidently without fear or favor in dispensing
justice to all manner of men.  The irony
of all of these is that the men of power today may be the ones who most need
the independence of the judiciary tomorrow when they are out of power or are competing
for political power.  It reminds me of
the International Bar Association bye-line: if you take care of the rule of
law, the rule of law will take care of you. 

I will give some other illustrative examples
of the systematic erosion of the

independence of the judiciary.  Recently, it was reported, and it has not
been denied that a Chief Judge was walked out of an official function at the
instance of the executive arm of government. 
In another State, we are told that the Governor has taken it upon
himself to displace a sitting Chief Judge without any input from the National
Judicial Council.  During the Onnoghen CJN’s
saga, the NBA had warned that if the undermining of the judiciary’s independence
was not checked and nipped in the bud, it would spread like cancer and consume Judges
both in the Federal and State Judiciaries. 
Sadly, we are now seeing the manifestations of that spread and, by
extension, the denigration of judicial officers and the erosion of the
independence of the judiciary.  

In the midst of all these, it is heartening
that a Judge of the High Court has

again pronounced, within the last one week,
that no Legislature or Executive arm of government has the right to attempt the
removal of a Judge without first going through the National Judicial Council
(“NJC”) processes.  It remains for us all
to encourage the NJC to rise up to its statutory mandate and protect the
independence of our judiciary.   The NBA
stands ready to work with our Judges in that regard.  Our Judges cannot deliver justice under a
climate of fear and intimidation. 
Justice thrives where and when there is an independent judiciary. There
can be no such independence when there is no security of tenure for our
Judges.  There can be no independence of
the Judiciary when our Judges are intimidated, threatened and blackmailed by
State agencies and their officials.  There
can be no independence of the judiciary when our Judges are actively coerced by
State officials to think and reason only in the manner that those officials and,
presumably, government want them to think.  

The robustness of the judiciary lies, not
only in the soundness of its judgments but in the inherent right of judges to
dissent even amongst themselves and to make independent judgments.  If Judges can dissent amongst themselves,
then it should be expected and it is a right that inheres in the office for
Their Lordships to dissent from the opinions, wishes and thinking of State
officials, whether at the Federal or State Governments.  Such dissent should not result in the casting
of aspersions on the Judges and/or the blackmail and intimidation of the
Judges. These ignoble and destructive practices must stop.  The government must guarantee and we – the
Bar and the Bench – must rise up to protect the independence of the judiciary
and the right of our judicial officers to have independent minds in the
discharge of their onerous responsibilities. We would, by so doing, be
promoting and protecting the Rule of Law in our land.

I now turn to the other twin independence
i.e. the independence of the legal profession. 
Permit me to state that it is impossible to have the Rule of Law without
lawyers and an independent legal profession.  The independence of the legal profession is
threatened when lawyers are not able to practice their trade without let or
hindrance.  That independence is
seriously threatened in our land today. 
That independence is assaulted when lawyers are branded as criminals
merely because of their professional functions and responsibilities. The
independence of the legal

profession is eroded when lawyers are
targeted as a group and stigmatized merely because of their professional
duties.  And this is happening in our
country today.  

It is now the practice for lawyers to turn
down certain types of briefs and

clients in order not to be perceived as being
anti-government and/or its agencies with the attendant inquisitions that go
with such stigmatization.  Nowadays,
lawyers discriminate against briefs and instructions, not on professional
grounds, but because they do not wish to attract the inquisitorial attention of
government agencies nor to be stigmatized by those agencies.  The same climate of fear and intimidation under
which our Judiciary operates, pervades the practice of law today.  That is an absolute erosion of the
independence of the legal profession and a destruction of the

Rule of Law. 
Like I said earlier, the irony is that the men of power of today who
strike fear into our hearts and destroy our independence may be the ones
requiring the services of lawyers tomorrow and wishing for or desiring an
independent legal profession.

The two issues that I have raised in this Address
have profound impact and effect on how our society operates.  Without the rule of law and security of lives
and property, society gradually descends into a state of anarchy and democracy
becomes a mere pretension.  Democracy
itself cannot survive without the rule of law. 
These twin elements – rule of law and security of lives and property –
are what drive society and the economy. 
It would be revealing if we were to have proper and verified

statistics on the investment opportunities
that have been lost to Nigeria because of these twin pervasive challenges –
i.e. insecurity of lives and property and the erosion of the rule of law.  As an Association of Lawyers, we must
constantly rise up to challenge our leaders on these twin fronts.  We must hold our leaders accountable for
security of lives and property while also defending and promoting the rule of
law in our society.  Our leaders must
also understand that by holding up these two tenets – security of lives and
property and the promotion of the rule of law – they secure their own lives and
wellbeing as well, for, as we must continue to emphasize, if you take care of
the rule of law, the rule of law will take care of you. 

On a good and harmonious note, I must conclude
this Address by mentioning that we have fulfilled our electoral promise to
remit 10% of the Bar Practice Fees to our branches.  A number of the Branches have already
received their remittance and the others will presently join the ranks of the
recipients.  Our colleague, Rabiu Ayuba, the
young man that won a car during the 2018 Annual General Conference but which we
were not able to fulfill due to the state of our purse now has cause to
smile.  This afternoon, during the break
period, I will be joined by some of the elders of our Association to present
the car keys to him.  We have also
continued in the path of financial prudence, transparency and accountability by
publishing to you our Association’s Q4 Financial Statement.  This is a commitment that we made and which
we will continue to keep.  

I mention these fulfilled promises merely to
make the point that electoral

promises can be kept when there is the will
to keep them.  I am pleased that the NBA under
my watch is displaying these exemplary conducts which I hope our national politicians
and society at large are taking note of. 
It surely should be possible for our governments to also fulfill their
electoral mandate of securing our lives and property and promoting the rule of
law.  By the way, we still have many more
milestones to achieve.  One of these is
the recommencement of our insurance cover which will be concluded very
shortly.  There are also outstanding our
electoral commitments to our young lawyers and our various other Forums which
we would also fulfill presently.  All of
these and much more would be fulfilled, by the Grace of the Almighty.

Once again, I welcome you, my distinguished
colleagues, to the third NEC

meeting of the present administration.  I wish us very fruitful deliberations. 

Long live the Nigerian Bar Association. 

Long live our Independent Judiciary. 

Long live the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. 

Paul Usoro, SAN President

Intellectual Property Ownership Of Content Created By Artifical Intelligence | Judy-Vallery Imasuen and Eseoghene Palmer

Intellectual Property Ownership Of Content Created By Artifical Intelligence | Judy-Vallery Imasuen and Eseoghene Palmer

Technological advancement has been able to successfully bring to life concepts that were only seen in science fiction. Artificial intelligence with its ability to mimic the human thought process has created new frontiers through the possibility of machine-generated content. Through deep learning technology, artificial intelligence is able to “learn” by processing information such as sounds, patterns and speech.

This has successfully promoted some programs from merely being tools used by a programmer or end-user to create content to being content creators themselves.

WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?
For the purposes of this article, it is appropriate to delve into the meaning and a brief history of Artificial Intelligence. The idea of inanimate objects carrying out functions of intelligent beings has been in existence since the time of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. However, the term “Artificial Intelligence” was first mentioned at a conference in Darmouth College, New Hampshire in 1956. The journey to the development of artificial intelligence was not so smooth. It experienced turbulent times characterized by inadequate funding but interest in producing intelligent machines was still present. In 1966, Joseph Weizenbaum invented a chatbot named “ELIZA” that was capable of carrying out conversations. Further, research into the field led to the invention of a program named “NETtalk” and the computer was able to speak for the first time in 1986. In 1997, IBM-owned chess computer named “Deep Blue” defeated former world chess champion Gary Kasparov in a game of chess.
In a nutshell, artificial intelligence or “AI” is the aspect of computer science involving the development of computer systems that function like humans. These systems are capable of learning and carrying out human-like activities such as making decisions and recognizing speech and facial expressions. Artificial intelligence has several use cases and it has made an impact in different sectors such as healthcare, aviation, and business. Machines making use of Artificial Intelligence can be termed to be “intelligent” machines.
In legal terms, AI is a combination of software and data. The software (instructions to the computer’s processor) is the implementation in code of the AI algorithm (a set of rules to solve a problem). What distinguishes AI from traditional software development is, first, that the algorithm’s rules and software implementation may themselves be dynamic and change as the machine learns; and second, the very large datasets that the AI processes (as what was originally called big data). The data is the input data (training, testing and operational datasets); that data as processed by the computer; and the output data (including data derived from the output). 
Now, artificial intelligence is finding its way to everyday life. The invention of assistants such as Apple’s Siri, Google’s Google and Microsoft’s Cortana in smart devices allows people to regularly come into contact with artificial intelligence. It is therefore possible to say that we will be seeing more of artificial intelligence in the coming years. 
OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR THE HUMAN
The advent of artificial intelligence has given rise to legal issues that were not envisaged by existing legislation. Artificial Intelligence has the capability of taking decisions and creating content that qualifies for intellectual property protection. Thus, this raises the question of who is entitled to the intellectual property rights to content created by Artificial Intelligence.
There are various views as to who owns the intellectual property rights to AI generated content. One argument is that data generated by Artificial Intelligence should belong to the public domain. It is argued that since Artificial Intelligence is non-human, copyright cannot be ascribed to any content generated by it. A driving force behind this is the ideology that making data freely available will contribute to the development of Artificial Intelligence.
However, the issue of providing the necessary incentive for the development of Artificial Intelligence cannot be ignored. The potential commercial value of Artificial Intelligence-generated content is a factor that can promote investment and subsequent development in Artificial Intelligence technology. To this extent, deciding who to attribute ownership of intellectual property of Artificial Intelligence-generated content to can go a long way to facilitating the commercial viability of such content.
Jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Germany on the other hand have made it expressly clear that for a thing to be subject of copyright, it has to be created by a human being. The US Copyright Office has announced that it “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” 
Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 of the United Kingdom provides as follows:
In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
The implication of this is that in countries where the independent thinking ability of a machine or artificial intelligence is under-appreciated save for its affiliation with a human inventor, liabilities caused by such a machine during normal and abnormal mechanical operations will fall on the inventor. Thus, the issues of Tortious offences common among Smart and Self-driving Cars shall be borne by the manufacturers. Product liability claims and conventional views of culpability and ethics are certain to be tested by these autonomous machines—like self-driving vehicles—where the current roadmap is for a mixed human and AI driver world. 
Product liability law provides some framework for resolving such claims; with a “product” like an autonomous car, the law groups those possible failures into familiar categories: design defects, manufacturing defects, information defects, and failures to instruct on appropriate uses. Complications may arise when product liability claims are directed to failures in software, as computer code has not generally been considered a “product” but instead is thought of as a “service,” with cases seeking compensation caused by alleged defective software more often proceeding as breach of warranty cases rather than product liability cases. See, e.g., Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Myriad France SAS, 850 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (case alleging defective software pleaded as a breach of warranty); In re All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 490 B.R. 418 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013) (same). 
Nevertheless, in October 2017 Saudi Arabia accorded citizenship to a humanoid robot named Sophia making it the first robot to have citizenship. Sophia, which was developed by Hanson Robotics, uses artificial intelligence and is capable of carrying out conversations. It has been argued that conferring citizenship on Sophia has the effect of making her a legal person under international law. 
Whether or not this is enough to confer intellectual property rights to content potentially created by Sophia to Sophia remains something to be considered. Under Saudi Arabian copyright law, Article 1 defines an author to be the “person who creates a work”.   The term “human” is not expressly stated. However, this point does not appear to raise too much of a concern at this present time. Over time as artificial intelligence improves, it will be important to specifically determine in whom intellectual property rests.The legal framework at this point remains sketchy. The current legal position appears to be that artificial intelligence is not seen as an inventor in its own right but rather as a tool that serves the purpose of an end user.
AFRICA’S LEGAL POLICIES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
In truth, most Countries in the world including countries in Africa are yet to come to termswith the advent of super computers. Contract laws, product liability and general tort laws will continue to guide the process and maintain law and order in our primitive state retrospectively. While regulation catches up, contracts should be carefully drafted to plug legal gaps, limit liability and appropriately allocate risk. Companies should develop internal policies and good corporate governance structures to record AI risks and judiciously manage AI implementation.
CONCLUSION
Beyond the immediate concerns, as autonomous AI applications develop, the fundamental question of whether AI should possess a legal status may be addressed by legislators worldwide. The issue of AI autonomy would raise the question of its nature in the light of the existing legal categories – of whether it should be regarded as natural person, legal person, animal or object – or whether a new category should be created, with its own specific features and implications as regards the attribution of rights and duties, including liability for damage. Unlike legislation, the protection provided by the courts is remedial not preventative. Courts assess liability and damages based on prior legal precedent. Cases where the harm is alleged to have been caused by AI applications ask the court to unravel novel technology and apply ill-fitting case law to make determinations of liability. For example, US common law tort and malpractice claims often center on human centered concepts of fault, negligence, knowledge, intent, and reasonableness. What happens when human reasoning is replaced by an AI application? What happens when the perpetrator or the victim is AI? 
Conclusively, we cannot avoid the inevitable. Artificial Intelligence is a revolution set to render its predecessors in technology obsolete or at best, vintage. It is vital that the legislative arm of World governments keep track of the activities of AI as it influences modern day actions. The degree of originality in the creative works of an AI should also be a critical factor in pondering questions of Intellectual Property Ownership.
Judy-Vallery Imasuen is Tech lawyer with over a decade of experience in programming. She has her expertise in intellectual property law, blockchain technology and artificial intelligence. She can be contacted through imasuenjudy@gmail.com. 
Eseoghene O. Palmer is an I.P Lawyer with valuable experience in litigation, Contract Law, Banking Law, Entertainment Law, Compliance and Information Technology Law. He can be reached on eseoghene.palmer@gmail.com
A Review Of Data Protection Bill 2019 HB02: Three Ways it Affects Nigerians | Adavize Alao

A Review Of Data Protection Bill 2019 HB02: Three Ways it Affects Nigerians | Adavize Alao

Nigeria has not had any data
protection regulation that covers the rights of people resident within its
territory. The Nigerian Information Technology Development Agency(NITDA) recently
began the implementation of a data protection regulation known as the Nigerian
Data Protection Regulations 2018 which was copied from the EU General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The regulation released by the
NITDA was not attributed to any specific provision of the authority’s enabling
legislation and a vague reference was made to Section 6 of the NITDA Act. A lot
of individuals have reviewed the piece of regulation released by the NITDA and
have failed to note that the agency lacks the requiste power to regulate or
create provisions for legislating over data protection within Nigeria, such
reviews can safely be described as misleading. The regulations can, therefore,
be described as an act of jurisdictional overreach as the agency was not set up
to regulate data protection within Nigeria.

Furthermore, the regulation can
best be described as an affront to the
ECOWAS Data Protection Law of which Nigeria is a signatory
to and participated in the drafting of the legislation.

 1. Introduces
Prison terms

The bill introduces provisions
that if breached introduces prison sentences for persons and organisations that
fall foul of its rules. In part XII which comprises of sections 48 to 54 of the
legislation, jail terms have been stipulated for persons or organisation who
trade in personal data belonging to residents of Nigeria. In Nigeria, certain
companies and entities buy and sell data belonging to residents of Nigeria to
organisations or individuals who engage in micro-targeting of people.

The business of buying and
selling user data would therefore become a crime with the introduction of
Section 48(4) which state that “A person commits an offence who advertises
or indicates that Personal Data where the person obtains the data in
circumstances described under subsection (1) of this section, is or may be
available for sale, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term
not less than 5 years or to a fine of not less than
₦3,000,000,000.00 or to both such imprisonment term and fine.”

Furthermore online content
service providers such as Google, Facebook, Jumia and associated entities could
also face jail terms if they fail to obey the provision of section 36 of the
bill on data localisation. Section 36 provides that all Data Controllers and
Data Processors of Personal Data shall record, systematize, accumulate, store,
host, amend, update and retrieve Personal Data on devices that are physically
located within Nigeria’s territorial jurisdiction.

A breach of the above provision
would result in a data controller or processor being liable upon conviction to
imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years or to a fine of not less than
₦8,000,000,000.00 or to both such imprisonment term and fine.

2. Introduces the Right to be
Forgotten In Nigeria.

Under the Data Protection bill,
there are eight key rights belonging to Data subjects. The rights are listed
below.

  •  Right to be informed: this means that
    data controllers must provide clear and correct information to data
    subjects – purpose, retention. This right is discerned from Section 18.
  • Right of access: This means data subjects have
    the right to know whether personal data is being processed and if so,
    access it ie copy of their personal data – how and why. This right is
    discerned from Section 18.
  • Right to rectification: This means if personal
    data is inaccurate data controllers must correct it. This right is
    discerned from Section 20
  • Right to erasure or right to be
    forgotten: This means if personal data belonging to an individual is made
    public, the data subject has the right to have such information deleted.
    This right is discerned from Section 20.
  • Right to restriction of processing ie right to
    limit personal data processing. This right is discerned from Section 25.
  • Right to data portability: This simply means
    to move, copy and transfer personal data across different services. This
    right is discerned from Section 26.
  • Right to object: This means data subjects have
    the power to decline personal data processing eg direct marketing. This
    right is discerned from Section 23 of the bill.
  • Right not to be evaluated based on automated
    individual decision making (AI) including profiling. This right is
    discerned from Section 19(1).

The right to be forgotten is a
right which stipulates that personal data were obtained or available shall be
erased when such data is inadequate, irrelevant and excessive in relation to
the purposes for which it was collected. A typical example is when a search
engine operator would be obliged to delete the links to related pages.

The right to be forgotten would
allow residents of Nigeria ask data processors or data controllers i.e search
engines to remove links to “inadequate, irrelevant or … excessive” content
pursuant to the provisions of Section 20 of the bill

The right to forgotten was made
prominent by the case of Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v
Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González
. In
that case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that an
individual could apply to an internet intermediary or online content service
sharing provider to prevent information about the individual from coming up in
searches or on the internet intermediary’s platform.

The CJEU further noted that the
applicability of the doctrine has a broad territorial scope, and should the
need arise results gotten be delisted on a search engine’s platform. The Court
further found that the fundamental right to privacy is greater than the
economic interest of a commercial firm and, in some circumstances, the public
interest in access to Information.

3. Data Localisation

 Data localization is the
act of keeping data on any device that is
physically present within the borders of a specific country where the data was generated.

The provisions of Section 36
provide that “The Data Commissioner shall mandate Data
Controllers and Data Processors of Personal Data pursuant to this Bill, to
record, systematize, accumulate, store, host, amend, update and retrieve
Personal Data on devices that are physically located within Nigeria’s
territorial jurisdiction.

The provision would ensure that
the Nigerian government having to deal with cybersecurity threats or
individuals worrying about the right to privacy. It would also lead to the
creation of more jobs for persons resident in Nigeria.

Although the provisions of
section 36 can best be described as a protectionist clause it may lead to a
development known as splinternet or cyber-balkanization which means the
segregation of the internet by various regions due to factors such as
technology, nationalism, commerce and laws.

Adavize Alao

Paul Usoro Constitutes Constitutional and Electoral Review Committee

Paul Usoro Constitutes Constitutional and Electoral Review Committee

Pursuant to the mandate that was given to me by the NBA NEC at its meeting that was held on 06 December 2018, I have constituted a Constitutional and Electoral
Review Committee comprising the following eminent members of our 
Association

I. Professor Fabian Ajogwu, SAN – Chairman
II. Solomon Umoh, SAN – Alternate Chairman
III. Titi Akinlawon, SAN
IV. Seye Opasanya, SAN
V. Ibrahim Aliyu Nassarawa
VI. Henry Chidi Onyuike
VII. Ekpenyong Ntekim
VIII. Yusuf Asamah Kadiri
IX. David Karshima
X. Nkoyo Amah
XI. Aji Bubakari Kamale
XII. Dele Oloke
XIII. Sule Shuaibu
XIV. Adamu Aliyu Umar
2. One of the cornerstone legacies that my administration hopes to bequeath to
succeeding NBA administrations would be corporate governance principles
exemplified by the transparency, prudence and accountability with which we manage
the finances of the Association. The practice of preparing and publishing the NBA’s
Quarterly Financial Statement (“FS”) has come to stay and has been applauded by
most well-meaning members of our Association.
3. Unknown to most, the NBA Constitution does not mandate that practice. My
administration has institutionalized the practice merely because we know and believe
it to be good practice, particularly in a circumstance that we are managing the
Association’s funds in trust for the members. However, given the lacunae in our
Constitution, there is the distinct if not imminent possibility and likelihood of that
practice departing the NBA House with the effluxion of my administration’s tenure –
except of course the Constitution is amended to institutionalize, with prescribed
sanctions in the event of default, the preparation of the Quarterly FS by the elected
executive, presentation of the FS to NEC at its quarterly meetings and publication of
same to all members.
4. I have used the preparation and publication of the NBA’s Quarterly FS to
illustratively make the point for the review of our Constitution in a manner that,
amongst others, would entrench the principles of corporate governance in the
administration of our Association’s affairs. That of course informed my selection of
a renowned corporate governance teacher, Professor Fabian Ajogwu, SAN to chair
the review Committee. As I have done in other instances, I have included some
Branch Chairmen as members of the Committee in the expectation that they will
carry the torch and flag of the Committee to the Branches and assist the Committee
and all of us in achieving our collective goals and aspirations.
5. We would continually update members with the workings of the review
Committee in the weeks and months ahead.
Paul Usoro, SAN

President
NBA President Directs Payment Of 10% Of BPF To Branches

NBA President Directs Payment Of 10% Of BPF To Branches

According to Mr. Kunle Edun, the National Publicity Secretary of the NBA, in furtherance of the vision of the present administration to empower the branches in the performance of their local responsibilities, the NBA President, Paul Usoro,SAN has directed that all the NBA branches should be paid 10% of the Bar Practice Fees paid by their members in 2019. 

The payment process is on and when completed  the branches would be Immediately notified. 

 Kunle Edun
 National Publicity Secretary, NBA

The NBA-AGC Registration Help Desk Is Second To None |  NBA ORLU, IMO STATE BRANCH

The NBA-AGC Registration Help Desk Is Second To None | NBA ORLU, IMO STATE BRANCH

The NBA Orlu Branch of Imo State has commended the NBA – AGC TCCP for their quick response and surgical precision in ensuring the speedy resolution of any hiccups lawyers experience while trying to register for the Annual General Conference. 

Nnamdi Okafor, Publicity Secretary of Orlu branch  stated “I must commend your response team. They are next to none.
I ran into problems registering a member and they stayed with me until the issue is ressolved, they even called me themselves.
Tell them Orlu Branch is grateful. This is what I always talk about in the service sector in Nigeria, it doesn’t cost much to effective.” 
Lawyers are therefore assured of a smooth registration process and excellent service in regard to  any registration hiccups. Pls call the helplines or use the email if you wish to contact the NBA-AGC Registration Help Desk. 
@Legalnaija