Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in a Franchise Agreement – Sandra Eke

Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in a Franchise Agreement – Sandra Eke

1.     
Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights
(IPRs) are very valuable business assets which do not only contribute to the
general profitability of a business but also leads to the advancement of the
innovative and technological sectors of every country.[2] A Franchise is a form of licensing
arrangement between a franchisee and franchisor which grants the franchisee,
through a franchise agreement, access to use the proprietary knowledge,
processes, technical know-how and other intellectual property rights of the
franchisor, to enable the franchisee trade in the product or service of the
franchisor under the trade name of the franchise. In a franchise agreement
several intellectual property rights are exploited since the transfer of those
intangible rights appears to be the bane of Franchise arrangements. 


These rights include
trademarks, trade secrets, patents, copyrights etc. There is often a mutually
beneficial relationship between a franchisor and franchisee, the franchisor
seeks to expand its business and brand name beyond its territorial borders
while the franchisee on the other hand seeks profitable return by exploiting
the existing brand reputation of the franchisor while remitting fees to the
franchisor. In the licencing and transfer of intellectual property rights in a
franchise agreement, it is very important that necessary steps and measures are
taken to better protect certain proprietary intangible rights from unauthorised
uses and exploitation by franchisees.

The franchisors have a
general duty of brand reputation management of its franchise especially as it
relates to the way the franchise business is run, the use of its trademark,
inventions and confidential information, and the promotional materials
utilised.[3] Sadly, there is no specific
regulatory agency or legislation regulating franchise arrangements in Nigeria.
In ensuring the adequate protection of the intellectual property rights covered
in a franchise arrangement, recourse is made to other existing laws and
regulatory agencies.[4] 

For instance, the National
Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP) Act, requires that all
agreements for the transfer of foreign technology to Nigerian parties should be
registered with NOTAP not later than sixty days from the execution of the
agreement,[5] it also states other requirements
that should be satisfied before an agreement can be registered,[6] and prescribes the percentage of
fees approvable as royalty earnings for registration in a franchise agreement.[7] We will examine some relevant
intellectual property rights deserving attention and protection in a franchise
arrangement.

2.     
Trademarks

Trademarks are an essential
intellectual property right in a business enterprise or going concern which can
be licenced via a franchise agreement. A trademark is a signifier which is
capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one company[8] from those of another. It comprises
of logos, designs, drawings, symbols, taglines, numbers, three-dimensional
features, or a combination of any of these.[9] They are a very integral part of
Intellectual Property because they act as source identifiers by drawing the
attention of the consumers to the origin and source of the product or service.
In a Franchise agreement, the franchisor usually licences the use of its
trademark to a franchisee that in turn pays a fee or royalty for such use.
Examples of some popular franchise brands in Nigeria include: Chicken Republic,
Domino Pizza, Debonairs Pizza, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), Coldstone
creamery, Slot, Mr. Biggs, Tantalizers etc.

However, the modality of
usage of a franchisor’s trademark should be clearly stipulated in a franchise
agreement because if the use of such trademark is not properly managed, the
franchise could face some serious reputational damage to its brand. For
instance, a franchisee that purchases products bearing the trademark of the
franchisor from a counterfeit supplier and distributes such fake products in
its jurisdiction, could tarnish the image of the franchise.[10] Consequently, the franchise agreement
should contain certain obligations required of the franchisee while utilizing
the trademark and brand name of the franchise. The obligations could entail in
addition to the franchisor acknowledging ownership of the Franchise trademark
by the franchisor, that all products distributed by the franchisee be sourced
from a verifiable third-party or the franchisor itself, and that any
unauthorised use or modification of the trademark or the sale of third-party
goods (under the franchise brand) without prior written approval of the
franchisor, may result in the repudiation of the franchise agreement. It is
important to note that, as opposed to some jurisdictions there is no statutory
requirement, asides those that may be implied from persuasive foreign case laws,
for a trademark licensor/franchisor to ensure that specific standards are met
by the licensee/franchisee in Nigeria. Likewise, there is no requirement that a
trademark must be transferred along with the goodwill in the business.[11]

Also, it is important that
the Franchisor obtains legal protection for the tra
demark of its franchise in
the jurisdiction[12] of the franchisee since trademark
registrations are territorial in nature with the exceptions of some regional
registration bodies.[13] Registration will give the
franchisor exclusive rights and protection of its trademark in the jurisdiction
of the franchisee. There are instances when the trademark of a franchisor is
already in use in the franchisee’s jurisdiction and sometimes the owners of
such mark could have registered the trademark mischievously to take advantage
of the goodwill and brand name of the franchise and to pre-empt a legitimate
claim. This was the unfortunate experience of a few famous franchise chains
like Burger King and Taco Bell when they
decided to expand their brand into new territories; only to discover that some
unrelated third parties were already making use of their trademarks.[14] Registration is very important in a
franchise agreement as it prevents the unauthorised use of the trademark of the
franchisor. However, apart from the registration of the franchisor’s trademark
in Nigeria, there is a need for the franchisor to grant a right of use (i.e., a
licence) to the franchisee to use its brand name in Nigeria and such licence
must be recorded at the Nigerian Trade Mark Registry to avoid objections by
interested parties seeking a declaration of abandonment for non-use.[15]

3.     
Trade Secrets/Confidential Information

There is a temptation to
categorize confidential information as trade secrets since both require the
protection of some sensitive information, but they are not exactly the same.
Trade secrets are basically confidential in nature but it is not all
confidential information that is a trade secret. For an alleged confidential
information to transit into a trade secret, there are certain characteristics
identical to a trade secret that it must possess. For instance, such
information should possess some commercial value and certain reasonable steps
should be taken to protect such information from public access.[16] A franchise agreement usually
involves the transfer of valuable confidential information to the franchisee
and it is essential that such information is protected from general public
knowledge in order not to deprive the franchisor of the benefits of its
creations. In comparison to other intellectual property rights like trademarks
and patents, trade secrets are not territorial in nature and do not require
registrations, periodic renewals or maintenance to be protected. However, once
they get into the public domain, they lose their protection. Therefore,
appropriate measures and relevant provisions should be clearly stipulated in
the franchise agreement to restrict the dissemination of proprietary
information.[17] In a franchise agreement, the
confidential information or trade secrets of the franchisor could be in the
form of any of the following; financial or technical know-how, business plans,
implementation strategies, distribution techniques, operation manuals, pricing
technique, recipes, customer lists, chemical formula etc. It should be noted
that the franchisee has a duty of ascertaining the precise value of the trade
secrets because certain proprietary information could be of doubtful legitimacy
and value.[18]

Furthermore non-compete
clauses and provisions restricting the franchisee from taking advantage of the
trade secrets of the franchisor should be laid out in the franchise agreement
to prevent the franchisee from rescinding the agreement in order to establish a
business based on protected information or from furnishing such information to
the competitors of the franchisor upon termination of the agreement. This was
the situation in the case of Gold Messenger v Mc Guay,[19] where confidential information
belonging to the franchisor was given to the franchisee and the franchise
agreement stipulated a provision disallowing the franchisee from competing with
the franchisor for three years and within 50 miles of the franchisor’s
franchise territories. At the termination of the agreement the franchisee
utilized the confidential information to set up his own enterprise and the
court held that the franchisee cannot use the confidential information he
obtained during the period of his contract with the franchisor to compete
unfairly with the franchisor. Consequently, it is important for every franchise
agreement to clearly define the franchisor’s trade secret, require the franchisee
to execute non-disclosure agreements with its employees who may become aware of
the franchisors trade secret only on a need to know basis, prescribe
confidentiality clauses that protect the trade secrets of the franchisor from
unauthorised use both during the lifespan of the franchise agreement and post
termination of the agreement.

4.     
Copyrights

This is another important
intellectual property right that can be impacted in a franchise agreement and
would thus require sufficient protection. A copyright is a legal protection
that avails creators and originators of works eligible for protection.[20] It confers an exclusive and
assignable right to the originator of various kinds of creative expressions,
whether literary, Musical, Artistic or Cinematographic works or adaptations of
any of the aforementioned works.[21] Nigerian law requires that the
author must have expended sufficient effort to give the work an original
character and the work must be fixated in a definite medium of expression.[22] Copyrightable works in a franchise
agreement include literary works like operation manuals, recipes, source codes;
musical, audio-visuals and sound recordings like radio jingles and television
commercials; architectural works like the template plans and designs of the
franchised buildings, sculptural works like Mascots etc.[23] As discussed under Trademarks,
Copyright registration is also important in obtaining protection in the
jurisdiction of the franchisee. Although copyright subsists in a work upon
creation, most jurisdictions possess a voluntary national registration system
where rights holders can lodge copies of their work.[24] In some jurisdictions, like the
United States, copyright registration entitles a claimant in a copyright
infringement action to statutory damages. It is important for franchisors to
register or lodge their copyrighted materials in the depository of the
prescribed bodies within the jurisdiction of the franchisee to obtain better
protection or in order to facilitate enforcement proceedings.

Also, it is pertinent for
franchise agreements to contain clauses on the copyright ownership of creations
of the franchisee or employers of the franchisee which were developed during
the course of the franchise, including developments in other forms of
intellectual property.[25]

5.     
Patents

A patent is an exclusive and
assignable intellectual property right granted to an inventor over his/her
patentable invention for a specified period of time.[26] In Nigeria, for an invention to be
patentable it must be new or constitute an improvement of a patented invention,
result from inventive activity and be capable of industrial application.[27] Some franchisors possess patented
inventions that are licensed to franchisees in a franchise agreement. These
inventions could be in the form of business methods, computer software
application, and equipment hardware. As has been sufficiently buttressed above,
the protection granted by a patent is territorial in nature, therefore there is
a need for the registration of these rights in the various jurisdictions where
the franchisees operate, in a bid to secure maximum protection over the patent.
Franchise agreements should prescribe the mode of utilization of the patented
inventions of the franchisee in order to prevent unauthorized exploitations. In
addition, it should include specific provisions on the ownership of inventions
created during the course of the franchise arrangement, especially if the
franchise agreement empowers the franchisee to undertake any inventive activity
for the overall benefit of the franchise.[28]

6.     
Conclusion

Intellectual Property Rights
(IPRs) are the main stock-in-trade in a franchise. They avail franchisors an
opportunity of business expansion while simultaneously making profits through
the collection of fees or royalty payments from their franchisees.  The
nature of a franchise exposes the franchisor to a high risk of possible
misappropriation of its trade secrets, misuse of its brand reputation, goodwill
and other intellectual property rights. There are very crucial provisions that
must be inserted in a franchise agreement to ensure that the IPRs of the
franchisor are adequately protected. In this regard, it is advisable for a
prospective franchisor or franchisee to retain the services of an IP lawyer
before venturing into a franchise arrangement to ensure that all requisite
bases are covered.



 For further information
on this article and area of law, please contact

Sandra Eke at:
S. P. A. Ajibade & Co., Lagos by telephone (+234 1 472 9890),

fax (+234 1 4605092) Mobile:
+234.7033442333 or Email: seke@spaajibade.com

[1]      
Sandra Eke, Associate Intellectual Property & Technology Law Department,
SPA Ajibade & Co., Lagos, NIGERIA.

[2]      
Yetunde Okojie (2018) “The Importance of IP Due Diligence in Mergers and
Acquisition” available at: http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/the-importance-of-ip-due-diligence-in-mergers-and-acquisition-article-okojie/ accessed
12th October 2019.

[3]      
Brand Protect, “Why IP protection is vital to franchisors” available at: https://www.bptm.co.uk/franchising/why-ip-protection-is-vital-to-franchisors/ accessed
13th December 2019.

[4]      
The NOTAP Act, Chapter N62, LFN 2004 through its agency, NOTAP (National Office
for Technology Acquisition and Promotion) regulates the importation of all
foreign technology into Nigeria; the Patents & Designs Act, Cap P2, LFN
2004, makes provisions for the registration of patentable inventions in
Nigeria. The Government agency that manages the grant of patents is the
Trademarks, Patents and Designs Registry; the Trade Mark Act, Cap. T13, LFN
2004 makes provisions for the registration of Trademarks in Nigeria etc.

[5]      
S.5(2) NOTAP Act. Although, as decided in the recent landmark case of Stanbic
IBTC v. FRCN & Anor

(2018) LPELR-46507(CA), the
court held that the non-registration of a technology transfer agreement under

the NOTAP Act neither
renders such agreement invalid nor unenforceable.

[6]      For
instance, there must be evidence of registration of intellectual property e.g.
trademarks and patents;

In the case of retail shops,
there should be evidence of the local sourcing of the raw materials from local

producers; the scope of the
agreement should specify the object of the agreement, obligations and

services to be rendered by
the technical partner, training and capacity-building, detailed information of

technical experts etc.

[7]      The
fees approvable are: Initial/Basic fee: A lump sum (to be reasonably fixed);
Franchise/Continuing fee:

0.5%- 2% of net Sales or
revenue and Marketing/ Advertising fee: which should not exceed 1% of net sales

or revenue.

[8]      
In this instance, it is a source identifier capable of distinguishing one
franchise from another.

[9]      
See generally, Sandra Eke “Why you need to Protect your Business Hashtags and
Catchphrases” available at:http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/why-you-need-to-protect-your-business-hashtags-and-catchphrases-sandra-eke/ accessed
13th December 2019.

[10]    
Op. cit. n.1.

[11]    
Section 26(1) and (4) Trade Marks Act.

[12]    
To obtain a trademark protection in Nigeria, the trademark is required to be
registered with the Trademarks,

Patents and Designs Registry
in Nigeria.

[13]    
Like the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and
Organisation Africaine de la Propriété  Intellectuelle (OAPI).

[14]    
Baybridge, “Intellectual Property in Franchising” available at: https://www.baybridge.com.au/blog/intellectual-property-franchising-why-does-it-matter/ accessed
13th December 2019.

[15] 
   See Sections 31 and 33(3) Trade Mark Act.

[16] 
   WIPO, “Managing Trade Secrets in a Franchising Arrangement”
available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_smes_lhe_2_07/wipo_smes_lhe_2_07_topic04.ppt accessed
13th December 2019.

[17]    
SPA AJIBADE & CO, “The Role of Trade Secrets in the Protection of IP
Rights” available at: http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/the-role-of-trade-secrets-in-the-protection-of-ip-rights/ accessed
14th December 2019.

[18]    
Ibid

[19]    
No. 96CA1619, 937 P.2d 907 (1997).

[20]    
Sandra Eke, “Fundamental elements of copyright ownership and protection under
Nigerian Law” available at: http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/fundamental-elements-of-copyright-ownership-and-protection-under-nigerian-law-sandra-eke/ accessed
14th December 2019.

[21]    
Ibid.

[22]    
Ibid.

[23]    
International Franchisors Association, “Basics Track: Franchisor’s Intellectual
Property and how to protect It”

December 2019.

[24]    
In Nigeria, copyrighted works can be lodged in the robust depository of the
Nigerian Copyrights Commission.

[25]    
Op. cit., n.13.

[26]    
The duration of a patent in Nigeria is 20 years. A patent expires at the end of
the twentieth year from the date of the filing of the relevant patent
application after which it falls into public domain.

[27]    
S.1 Patents and Designs Act.

[28]    
S.2 (4) Patents and Designs Act stipulate that “where an invention is made in
the course of employment or in

the execution of a contract
for the performance of specified work, the right to a patent in the invention
is vested in the employer or, as the case may be, in the person who
commissioned the work.”

Patentee’s refusal to grant licence on reasonable terms. Any remedies? | Infusion Lawyers

Patentee’s refusal to grant licence on reasonable terms. Any remedies? | Infusion Lawyers

Question of the Day –


I am Jude Ogbeide, CEO of Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd, a mobile-phone technology
company registered in Nigeria. In February 2018, we developed BatteryBuddies, a
new technology that will enable mobile-phone users charge their batteries by
using the battery power of paired mobile phones, as long as both phones are by
the same manufacturer. We introduced BatteryBuddies to a Nigeria-based mobile-phone
manufacturer. They loved it. After getting all paperwork done and licensing
arrangements were concluded, the mobile-phone manufacturer launched a new
mobile phone powered with BatteryBuddies. 


On Christmas eve, TechFusion, a technology
lab, sent us a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that Ivory Mask Innovations
stop making, marketing, distributing, licensing, or selling BatteryBuddies in
Nigeria because it allegedly infringed on its patent in a similar
technology, PowerFusion 3000. TechFusion made the same demand to our
phone-manufacturing client. According to TechFusion, it developed tPowerFusion
3000 in 2014 and the invention was patented in December 2016. TechFusion
has threatened to take legal action against us if we failed to cooperate.

Because we have invested so much in BatteryBuddies, we had to contact 3 patent
experts to assess both inventions. After independent expert assessments, it
turned out—sadly—that indeed TechFusion had developed and patented the same
invention. Consequently, we decided to cooperate.

But here’s the problem we have: We applied to
TechFusion for licence but TechFusion refused to license its technology to us.
After another try, TechFusion eventually agreed but offered to license the
patented invention under most unreasonable terms, including a most ridiculous
licence fee. Meanwhile, since TechFusion got patent for PowerFusion 3000
in Nigeria, the product has remained unused in the mobile-phone industry
in the country. Yet, TechFusion has prevented us from manufacturing BatteryBuddies.
This is unfair and most frustrating! Under Nigeria’s patent law, if a
patentee refuses to grant licence on reasonable terms, does the applicant have
any remedy?

Answer

Dear Mr Ogbeide


The answer is YES; applicant for a licence to a patented invention who is
unable to obtain from the patentee a licence on reasonable terms may
apply to the Federal High Court for a compulsory licence. If the
court determines that there is a ground for granting a compulsory licence in
accordance with the requirements of Nigeria’s Patents and Designs Act, it
would grant it.


Compulsory licences are lawful under the Patents and Designs Act.

The drafters of the Patents and Designs Act
contemplate that there may be a situation where there is need for compulsory
licences. Section 11 of the Act allows compulsory licenses to be granted.
Application for and grant of a compulsory licence is governed by the
provisions of the First Schedule to the Act.

By virtue of Part I paragraph 1 of the First
Schedule of the Act, a person may apply to the Federal High Court for the grant
of a compulsory licence. But an applicant for a compulsory licence is not
qualified to apply for one until (a) a period of 4 years has expired after
the patent application was filed or (b) a period of 3 years has expired after
the patent was granted, whichever period comes first.

From the above, Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd is
not yet qualified to apply for a compulsory licence for TechFusio’s PowerFusion
3000 patent. This is because the patent was granted in December 2016, one year
shot of the 3-year period required for filing for compulsory licences after the
patent was granted. But if TechFusion filed for the patent more than 4 years
ago, Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd is qualified to apply.

Therefore, based on the year the patent as
granted, Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd may apply for a compulsory licence by
December 2019.


Apart from the time factor above, there are 4 separate statutory grounds for
a grant of compulsory licence in Nigeria.

Compulsory licences are granted by the
Federal High Court upon an applicant’s fulfillment of the statutory
requirements under Part I paragraph 1(a)-(d) of the First Schedule of the Act.
By virtue of this provision, the court has the power to grant a compulsory
licence “on one or more of the following grounds”:

The patented invention, capable of being
worked in Nigeria, has not been so worked [emphasis ours];

1.      The existing degree
of working of the patented invention in Nigeria does not meet on reasonable
terms the demand for the product;

2.      The working of the
patented invention in Nigeria is being hindered or prevented by the importation
of the patented article; and

3.      By reason of the
refusal of the patentee to grant licences on reasonable terms, the
establishment or development of industrial or commercial activities in Nigeria
is unfairly and substantially prejudiced [emphasis ours].

These for grounds are not cumulative
requirements. Once Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd can prove one of the grounds, the
court is required to grant the compulsory licence.


Of the 4 grounds above, 2 grounds may favour Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd if
it applies to the court for a compulsory licence.

To convince the court, Ivory Mask Innovations
Ltd must either prove that TechFusion has failed to work the patented invention
or has the establishment or development of industrial or by refusing to grant
licences on reasonable terms, TechFusion’s refusal will unfairly and
substantially prejudice the establishment or development of industrial or
commercial activities in Nigeria.

First, regarding the first ground i.e working
the patented invention, paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to the Act directs that
“references to the working of a patented invention” are to be construed to
mean: “(a) the manufacture of a patented article; or (b) the application of a
patented process; or (c) the use in manufacture of a patented machine, by an
effective and serious establishment existing in Nigeria on a scale which is
adequate and reasonable in the circumstances.” If all TechFusion has got is a
patent and not the manufactured product 2 years after being granted patent, the
court may treat this as a ground for granting a compulsory licence.

Second, regarding the last ground i.e
TechFusion’s refusal to licence the patented invention in reasonable terms, the
court will form an opinion on whether the terms are indeed reasonable. If found
unreasonable, the court is required to find whether by reason of the
unreasonable terms, industrial or commercial activities in Nigeria concerning
the establishment or development of the patented invention have been unfairly
and substantially prejudiced.

If the court founds that TechFusion has
failed on either of the 2 grounds discussed above, it will grant a compulsory
licence to Ivory Mask Innovations Ltd on the court’s terms.

Patents are granted by the state based on
valuable consideration by the patentee—disclosure of all the details of how the
invention works. For this reason, the same state is not in a hurry to grant
compulsory licences except the patentee’s monopoly conflicts with public
interest—industrialization and commercialization.

Before obtaining a grant of patent, a patentee
must have typically invested a lot of resources into this. Also, the patentee
may have structured its proprietary business in a way that enables him or her
exploit the patent exclusively without any licences. The patentee may want to
be a category-king. Patent law protects this proprietary and commercial
interest. And because patents are exclusive rights, they necessarily create
monopolies.

So by twisting the hands of a patentee with
the force of law to issue a compulsory licence to an interested person, it may
destroy the exclusive rights that a patentee is otherwise entitled to. The
effect of this compulsory licence portend a great risk to the patentee’s
legitimate expectations and commercial interest.

This is why compulsory licences are only
granted by the court after it has considered that at least one of the grounds
for this grant is present in any application.

For legal advice and assistance with
negotiations with TechFusion and application for a compulsory licence, consult
your IP lawyer or law firm.

IP ABC

The Statutory Tort of Invasion of Privacy under the Law Reform (Torts) Law of Lagos State, Ch. L82 of 2015 and the recent spate of data breaches in Lagos State

The Statutory Tort of Invasion of Privacy under the Law Reform (Torts) Law of Lagos State, Ch. L82 of 2015 and the recent spate of data breaches in Lagos State

When towards the end of the last decade,
tax payers in Lagos state, Nigeria woke up to the sensational news of the
admitted data breach on the payment portal of Lagos Internal Revenue Service –
the state’s tax collection agency – one would have thought that, the Service
would have been bombarded with a myriad of law suits for such unprecedented
“invasion of privacy” but the Country’s extant laws, with the exception of the
Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR), which is, at best, fairly managing
to gain traction, is largely  believed to
be devoid of express provision on “invasion of privacy”

Having reviewed a couple of legal
articles and papers on the tort of invasion of privacy in Nigeria, the common
denominator seems to be the unconscious omission of the provisions of our local
statutes on torts, in exclusive favour of the common law of England from where
we inherited our jurisprudence on tort.

This repeated snub may however not be
unconnected with the widespread misconception that, the solitary source of our
law of torts is the common law of England thereby leading to the under-utility
of the texts of indigenous statutes that expressly and comprehensively make
provision for the tort of invasion as far back as 1961 when the Torts
Laws of Western and Eastern Nigeria
were enacted.

On the consciousness of our courts to
statutory (general) torts, as early as 1986, the Supreme Court in the decision
in Nasiru Bello v A.G. Oyo State (1986)
5 NWLR at page 828
took cognizance of the Torts Laws of Western Nigeria
which has now been codified into the Torts Law of Oyo State 1978. The

Worthy of mention however, is the recent
decision in Portland Paints &
Product Nig. Ltd v Mr. Jimmy Olaghere (2019) 2 NWLR (pt. 1657) 569
where
the Respondent sued the Appellant before the High Court of Lagos State for
breaching his privacy as a tort, but neither cited nor relied on the only law
that provides for “invasion of privacy” as a tort in Lagos State, although
trial court and Court of Appeal ruled in the Respondent’s favour, the golden
opportunity to utilize the Law of Lagos State on invasion of privacy was
momentarily lost.

For the avoidance of doubt, section 29 of
the Law
Reform (Torts) Law, Ch. L82 Laws of Lagos State 2015
provides that:

29. Invasion of privacy                                                                             “(1)
Anyone who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, on                           the solitude or
seclusion of another or private affairs or concerns,                            is liable for invasion of privacy, if the
intrusion would be highly                         offensive
to a reasonable person.

(2) Anyone who
uses the name or likeness of another in a manner and to an extent which
suggests to a reasonable person an intention to appropriate the name and
likeness of another or that is associated with another is liable to damages.

         

(3) Anyone who
publicizes a matter concerning the private life of                         another
is liable for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is                      of a kind that:

(a)
Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and                           (b) is not of legitimate concern to the
public.”

The law goes further in section 31 by
providing for remedies thus:

31. Remedies                                                                                        
“The remedies that a Court may grant in an action for invasion of    privacy includes:

(a)  Injunction.

(b)  Damages

(c)  Order directing
the defendant to account to the claimant profits that have accrued or may later
accrued to the defendant because of the invasion of privacy:

(d)  Order directing
the defendant to deliver to the claimant any material, article, photograph or
documents that have come into the defendant’s possession because of violation
of privacy and

(e)  Any other
appropriate order or relief.”

While reading subsection 3 of section 29
above, what readily came to mind was the wanton exposure of tax payers’ data by
the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service
and the data breach allegedly suffered by SureBet 247 which all seemed to have
gone without consequences, either under the extant Nigeria
Data Protection Regulation
(NDPR) or other relevant legislations.

This author is of the view that with or
without the Nigerian Data Protection Regulation (NDPR), the provisions of
sections 29 and 30 are comprehensive enough to be taken advantage of, for tortious
claims bordering on all kinds of privacy invasion (including data breach), and
same could be used to supplement and/or complement the new privacy regulations issued
to cater for the increasing privacy concerns in Lagos State and Nigeria as a
whole.

Olumide
Babalola
,
the managing partner of Olumide
Babalola LP
(a licenced Data Protection Compliance Organization) writes
from Lagos State, Nigeria.

olumide@olumidebabalolalp.com

Intellectual Property Issues in Fintech – Oluwafunmilayo Mayowa

Intellectual Property Issues in Fintech – Oluwafunmilayo Mayowa

Introduction

Over the last three years, there
has been a rapid rise in the number of Financial Technology (“Fintech”)
companies in Nigeria. Within the last three years the number of Fintech
companies in Nigeria has grown to over 60.[2] The growth in recent years is mainly
due to the introduction of modern and convenient payment services which is a
much-needed improvement to customer experience in the digital space.

From transaction payments to
lending, to insurance, virtual currencies and Blockchain, Fintech services are
redefining the way businesses and consumers carry out routine transactions. The
increasing adoption of these trends is positioning Nigeria as an attractive
market worldwide.[3] The industry has also experienced a
rise in its Investment opportunities, for example, Paystack and Piggybank.ng,
(two prominent Fintech companies in Nigeria) recently received both foreign and
local investments worth over $9 million.[4]

There are various intellectual
property (IP) rights associated with Fintech and like every other business it
is essential that Fintech companies adopt appropriate IP strategies to protect
their core innovations. Having a good IP portfolio does not only assist in
protecting technical innovations, it also helps to boost the image and value of
the company which in turn plays a critical role in attracting investors.[5] Some of the various IP aspects of
Fintech companies are briefly discussed below:

  • Patent

A Patent is an exclusive monopoly
granted by a country to an inventor for his or her ingenuity/invention for a
limited period of time usually 20 years.[6] Patents are considered to be one of
the core assets of technology related companies because it enables the company
to exploit the patented invention exclusively within the stipulated time before
releasing to the public domain and it precludes another person(s) from
exploiting the invention without the inventor’s consent or authorization.

Fintech companies often utilize
patent rights to protect the core of their inventions. It can be used to
protect devices such as ATM,[7] POS,[8] MPOS,[9] tokens, etc. as well as the
inventive steps or methods involved in the invention as well as the computer
programmes that drive these innovations.[10]

One of the major benefits of
patenting one’s invention is that it helps to create market monopoly over that
invention thereby providing the company the avenue to build its brand, attract
customer confidence in the product and simultaneously increases the income and
profit margins of the company. It also helps to boost a company’s profile,
making it more attractive to investors.

In Nigeria, for an invention to
be patentable it must be new or an improvement on an existing invention;
consist of an inventive step; must be capable of industrial application and
must not be specifically excluded under the law.[11] To obtain a patent, an application
will be submitted to the registrar of the patent registry together with the
prescribed fee. Upon careful examination of the application, if the registrar
is satisfied that the statutory requirements are met, the patent over that
invention will be granted. Once granted, the patent holder can enforce its
rights against infringers.[12]

  • Copyright

Typically, computer programs and
software are categorized and protected under copyright law.[13] Software such as computer codes,
mobile banking applications, audio and visual guides, application programming
interface structures etc., are some of the copyright assets of FinTech
companies. Copyright over these computer programs subsists automatically the
moment they are created and require no form of registration before it is
enforceable. However, owners of copyright may take further steps to lodge their
copyright with the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) under its
Notification/Depository scheme.[14] This serves the purpose of bringing
the existence of the work to the notice of the NCC and it also serves as proof
of ownership in court when there are competing interests.

Furthermore, in order to better
protect the copyright over their works, Fintech companies are advised to
inculcate the practice of placing digital locks on copies of their works to
provide additional security. Circumvention of digital locks is an offence in
some jurisdictions and may provide relief against unauthorized parties.[15] The Nigerian Draft Copyright Bill
2015 also prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures
protecting a work and entitles the aggrieved owner to reliefs such as damages,
injunction and accounts for profit. The companies should take more caution in
drafting the provisions of its contracts with developers especially when
incorporating third-party copyright, as this may affect the ownership of the
technology and freedom to operate.[16]

  • Trademark

The word mark, logos, domain
names, icons etc., which forms the brand of a business should be registered and
protected as trademarks because a good brand helps to distinguish a Fintech
company from its competitors. Registration of the trademark of a company
enables the company to successfully bring an infringement action against its
competitors for passing off or for damaging or diluting the goodwill and
reputation of the company.[17]

  • Trade Secrets

Trade secrets are confidential
business information that have economic or commercial value. Confidential
backend server processes, algorithms, business methods, ideas, client details,
code and secret recipes are some examples of trade secrets of a Fintech
company. It is pertinent that a company takes reasonable and deliberate actions
to protect its trade secrets especially those which gives it economic advantage
over competitors.

Unlike other IP assets, trade
secrets can offer perpetual protection so long as the secrecy is preserved,
because the value of a trade secret is in its secrecy, and once it is revealed
to the public or independently discovered by competitors, the right is lost.

A Fintech company can protect its
trade secrets by entering into Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with potential
clients, contractors or investors before providing them with any confidential
information. It can also have confidentiality, exclusivity, non-competition /
non-solicitation and intellectual property clauses in the agreements with its
employees. Likewise, the company can implement an enforceable data security
policy which will among other things restrict access to vital business
information to a need-to-know basis.

  • Industrial Designs

Industrial designs refer to the
physical/aesthetic outlook of a product offered by a company. The designs on
electronic cards, computer or machine interfaces are also protectable IP assets
of the Fintech companies. Industrial Designs may also contribute to the
distinctiveness of the brand.

Conclusion

Intellectual property forms the
bulk of the value of any business and is recognized as the most important asset
of a business.[18] It is the foundation for the market
dominance and continuing profitability of leading corporations.[19] Fintech
companies that desire to expand and increase income, market visibility,
clientele and investment portfolio must endeavor to manage and protect their IP
portfolio as a form of business strategy because IP increases the
competitiveness of a company and in turn affords it both economic and social
advantages over its competitors.

The licensing and assignment for
these IP rights to third parties will also provide a significant and valuable
income stream. With the constant rise in M&A transactions in the Fintech
space, having a strong IP portfolio increases the value of a firm when it is
being evaluated during a potential merger or acquisition.[20] Therefore, in addition to the
protection accorded to the tangible assets and technical financial services of
fintech, adequate attention must equally be directed towards protecting the
intellectual property assets of the company. A company can adopt either one or
a combination of the above-mentioned forms of IP protection for its business.

For further information on this
article and area of law, please contact

Oluwafunmilayo Mayowa at:
S. P. A. Ajibade & Co., Lagos by telephone

(+234 1 +234.810.952.8293
or  234.12703009;
14605091; 14605092
)

[1]      Oluwafunmilayo
Mayowa, NYSC Intern, SPA Ajibade & Co., Lagos, Nigeria.

[2]      
Medici, “56 Fintech Companies in Nigeria Enabling Inclusive Growth” available
at: https://gomedici.com/56-fintech-companies-nigeria-extending-access-to-financial-products-for-inclusive-growth accessed
2nd November 2019.

[3]       Boye
Ademola, “Fintech in Nigeria” available at: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ng/pdf/ng-fintech-in-nigeria-understanding-the-value-proposition.pdf accessed
29th October 2019.

[4] Emmanuel Benson, “Fintech
companies to watch out for in 2019
” available at: https://nairametrics.com/2019/01/22/fintech-companies-to-watch-for-in-2019/ 
accessed 4th November 2019.

[5]       Finance
Monthly, “Intellectual Property: How to Protect Your Fintech Innovation” available
at

[6]       See
section 7(1) Patents and Designs Act (PDA) 1970 cap P2 LFN 2004.

[7]     Yetunde Okojie and
Oluwasolape Owoyemi, “How do I Register an Invention in Nigeria? Substantive
and Procedural Requirements for Registration of an Invention
” available
at: http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/How-do-I-Register-an-Invention-in-Nigeria-by-Yetunde-Okojie-and-Oluwasolape-Owoyemi.pdf accessed
21st November, 2019.

[8]     Ibid

[9]     Ibid

[10]     The Canadian
Federal Court of Appeal in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011
FCA 328, held that Amazon.com “one-click” buy interface feature is patentable.

[11]     Section 1 PDA
Supra.

[12]   Yetunde Okojie and Oluwasolape
Owoyemi, supra.

[13]     Section 51
Copyright Act Cap C10 LFN 2004.

[14]   Federal Ministry of
Communications AND Digital Economy, “NCC unveils E-Registration Platform to
Check

e-registration-platform-to-check-piracy.html
accessed 21st November 2019.

[15]      Financier
Worldwide Magazine
 “Intellectual property strategy for FinTech” available
at:

[16]     Ibid.

[17]    John Onyido, “Understanding
Trademarks”, Presentation to the IP LAW CLUB Obafemi Awolowo University

2018, available at:  http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/
Understanding – Trademarks
IP-Club-Presentation-Obafemi-Awolowo-University-updated.pdf,
accessed 21st November 2019.

[18]     Nexsen Pruet“Intellectual
property is 80% of the value of a business
” available
at:    https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f7dd161-e101-4809-9cb6-af37b853aae8 accessed
27th October 2019.

[19]     WIPO, “The
value of Intellectual Property, Intangible Assets and Goodwill”
 available
at: https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/value_ip_intangible_assets_fulltext.html accessed
27th October 2019.

[20] Yetunde Okojie, “Importance of
IP Due Diligence in Mergers and Acquisition”
 available at: http://www.spaajibade.com/resources/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/THE-IMPORTANCE-OF-IP-DUE-DILIGENCE-IN-MERGERS-AND-ACQUISITION-ARTICLE-Okojie.pdf accessed
20th November 2019.

Names of Counsel that should appear in judgement of court; highlighting the Court of Appeal’s decision in Elias v Ecobank Nigeria Plc (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 175

Names of Counsel that should appear in judgement of court; highlighting the Court of Appeal’s decision in Elias v Ecobank Nigeria Plc (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 175

Ordinarily,
the concerned part of the decision of Lagos division of the Court of Appeal in
Elias v Ecobank (supra) ought not be of immense interest to practicing lawyers
but for the requirement of a certain number of Court of Appeal judgments in an
application for the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, which might
have prompted the learned senior lawyer to make such an audacious application
as would be seen later hereunder.

As
it is my style, I will once again, lead my audience into the facts of the case
under this spotlight for the necessary appreciation of the court’s ratio as to
the names that ought to appear in judgment of courts.

As
borne by the judgment, during the pendency of Appeal Number: CA/L/873/2013, Dr.
Charles Mekwunye’s clients (the appellants) demolished the property subject
matter of the suit and when delivering the judgment, although the name of the
counsel who adopted the appellants’ brief was not reflected in the end of the
judgment and in the judgment itself,
Obaseki – Adejumo JCA
held thus:

“In his brief of
argument, appellants’ counsel was silent on the contemptuous conduct of the
appellants by demolition of the property. It is the duty of counsel to exhibit
high level decorum and candour and fairness to the court and to other lawyers …
counsel appearing before any court owes a bounden duty to be diligent, treat,
the court with respect, honesty and mutual courtesy…”

Dissatisfied
with the omission of their counsel’s name in the judgment and the
uncomplimentary remark of the presiding Justice, the appellants filed an
application at the same court, for an order “reviewing and/or varying and/or
annulling part of the judgement” to show that Mr. E. Nwonu holding the brief of
Dr. Charles Mekwunye was in court and adopted the appellants’ brief and to
“delete the said remarks made by Obaseki – Adejumo, JCA against their counsel
to show that Dr. Charles Mekwunye appeared for them when judgement was
delivered.

In
ruling on the application, Augie, JCA (now JSC) held thus:

“Now
the applicants are urging us to review and/or vary and/or annul part of the judgment
to reflect three things… The third which is to vary the judgement to show that
the said Dr. Charles Mekwunye was in court when the judgment was delivered, is
out of the question because, as the respondent said, it is the names of
counsel who argued the appeal itself that are listed in the judgment, not the
name of counsel who merely appeared on the date of judgment
…..so the Constitution
recognizes that delivery of a judgment is a different process entirely from the
writing of the judgment, wherein the names of counsel who adopted the briefs of
argument at the appeal are listed.” (Emphasis mine)

From
the foregoing decision which, to my knowledge, is yet to be set aside by the
Supreme Court, the prevalent practice in judgment writing which lists the name
of counsel present at judgment delivery at the expense of counsel who conducted
the case or adopted the final address, ought to be relegated to the background
on the strength of this 2016 but extant position of the Court of Appeal.

I
however hope this decision doesn’t open a floodgate of applications for the
correction of judgments and rulings which have omitted the names of counsel who
argued the briefs or adopted the final addresses at the respective courts.

Olumide Babalola writes from
Lagos State.  

Justice Reforms: Dele Adesina SAN Calls for Federalization of the Judiciary

Justice Reforms: Dele Adesina SAN Calls for Federalization of the Judiciary

The commissioning of the Court of Appeal Divisions in Asaba, Delta State on Monday, February 3rd; Awka, Anambra State on Wednesday, February 5th; Kano State on Monday, February 10th and Yobe State, by the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Honourable Justice Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa, has brought into focus Mr. Dele Adesina SAN’s proposal for the federalization of the Nation’s Judiciary. This proposal posted on his social media handles on Tuesday, 3rd of February, 2020 was made on 11th of June 2018 while presenting a keynote address at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Benin Branch Law Week on the theme – THE ROLE OF LAW IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

In the said presentation, Mr Adesina SAN proposed “the total federalisation of our Judicial System.” According to him, “if the federating States can have their own Executives and Legislatures, the States are entitled to have a full complement of the State Judiciary to be made up of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the State to take charge of all matters that are on the Concurrent and Residual Legislative Lists while only matters of exclusive nature and on the Exclusive Legislative List shall go through the Federal High Courts, the Federal Court of Appeal and terminate at the Federal Supreme Court.”

Mr Adesina SAN also in the same presentation reemphasised the need to terminate interlocutory appeals at the level of the Court of Appeal. He is not done yet. He also made a strong case for the amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap. A18 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004, to make it legally obligatory for any party where a dispute has been referred to and settled by a competent arbitral panel leading to an arbitral award for obedience of the terms of the award; for example, depositing the award into an interest yielding account as a precondition for any application to set-aside or appeal. It is his contention that this will also go a long way to reduce frivolous applications and appeals inundating the High Courts and Appellate Courts.

The statement of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Tanko Muhammad that the Supreme Court “is daily inundated and suffocated with cases of different types” buttress the position that Mr Adesina SAN made at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Benin Branch Law Week in 2018.

Mr. Adesina SAN further stated that “It is common knowledge that there are thousands of matters before the various Divisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and clearing the backlog of these cases will take almost 5 years, not to mention the pressure mounted by the daily filing of more appeals before these superior courts.”

Mr Adesina SAN believes that stakeholders in the administration of justice, members of the Nigerian Bar Association and all Nigerians should begin to engage on promoting discuss of the total federalization of our Court system and creating State Court of Appeals and Supreme Courts for the State. According to him, “the judiciary as an institution is indispensable. The task of re-building the institution is a great one. The responsibility is enormous, and the duty is very imperative.”

On the commissioning of the Court of Appeal Divisions in Asaba, Delta State, Awka, Anambra State, Kano State and the other one to be commissioned soon in Yobe State, Mr Adesina SAN congratulated the President of the Court of Appeal, Honourable Justice Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa, the Justices of the Court of Appeal, the entire Judiciary of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN, all the Branch Chairmen and members of the Bar in the four States for this giant and historic feat at proactively addressing one of the fundamental challenges of delay and congestion facing our Courts. No doubt, the commissioning and the inauguration of the additional four Divisions of the Court of Appeal will bring justice closer to the people.

Chairman Egbe Amofin ni Eko backs Dele Adesina’s Adoption

Chairman Egbe Amofin ni Eko backs Dele Adesina’s Adoption

I have received several calls and messages asking me to refute or clarify the information related to the Adoption of Dcn Dele Adesina,SAN by Egbe Amofin Oodua.

For the avoidance of doubt, both Messrs Ajibade,SAN & Adesina,SAN were in attendance at Egbe Amofin ni Eko meeting yesterday.

It is an indisputable fact that Egbe Amofin Oodua did adopt Deacon Dele Adesina SAN as its candidate for OPNBA 2020.

It is also indisputable that *Egbe Amofin ni Eko is an affiliate of Egbe Amofin Oodua* . Recall that we hosted Egbe Amofin Oodua meeting in February 2019 here in Lagos.

It is therefore correct that Egbe Amofin ni Eko stands by, and is indeed bound by the decision reached on December 14, 2019 in ibadan.

It is correct that I did pronounce that any departure from that decision could only be discussed at Egbe Amofin Oodua meeting and not at Egbé Amofin ni Eko.

I am aware that another meeting of Egbé Amofin Oodua comes up on February 22 at ibadan and I encourage our members to attend.

Finally I remind our members that irrespective of our personal preferences, Article 10 of the Constitution of Egbe Amofin ni Eko enjoins us to prioritize the groups interest in our quest for NBA offices.

I thank you for your time.

*Otunba Martin Ogunleye*
Chairman

Legal Rights: Formal Apology From A Policer Officer Who Slapped A Lawyer

Legal Rights: Formal Apology From A Policer Officer Who Slapped A Lawyer

Attached is an apology letter from a Police officer who slapped a lawyer in Asaba. The lawyer is Samson Chinedozi Okehielem, a Sapele based lawyer who had a matter before Hon. Justice F.N. Azinge at High Court No. 4 Asaba.

During the court’s sitting on the 13th day of January, 2020 a convoy of the Commissioner of Police removed the barricade on the road including the  signboard ‘COURT IN SESSION’. The Court usually put the barricade because of the noise from vehicles plying that road. There are two other alternative routes within that same area but the CP’s convoy felt they were above the law.

During the commotion the Court had to rise and lawyers came out to caution the CP’s convoy that they should not remove the barricade and advised to take the alternative routes. One of the police officers, Sgt. Galadima Nwayama of the ‘A’ Division Police Station, Asaba (who was in the convoy) confronted our colleague and slapped him. Eventually the convoy passed and still returned again passing same route.

Immediately i got wind of it, i reached out to our colleague. He subsequently filed an action to enforce his fundamental rights against the said Sgt. and the Police authorities.

The Police authorities through the Command’s Legal Department reached out to me and requested for out of court settlement. Our colleague discussed with the Police legal team. He stated that he would forego reimbursenent of the legal expenses incurred. I proof read the terms and advised that the NBA President,  the branch Chairman and my Lord, F.N. Azinge should be copied.

Kunle Edun
National Publicity Secretary, NBA

Who owns Copyright in an AI Invention? – Oluwafunmilayo Mayowa

Who owns Copyright in an AI Invention? – Oluwafunmilayo Mayowa

Introduction
Copyright confers on the creator of a work of authorship an exclusive right to use and control the use of a protected material. Works eligible for copyright protection include: literary works such as novels, poems, plays, reference works, newspaper articles; computer programs, software, databases; films, musical compositions, and choreography; artistic works such as paintings, drawings, photographs, and sculpture; architecture; and advertisements, maps, and technical drawings.[2]

The Artificial intelligence (“AI’’) system is gradually becoming a global phenomenon with increasing significance and relevance in almost every facet of human society/activity. Copyright protects the software programmes which make up the “building blocks” of the AI system.[3] With the growth in the current trends coupled with continuous research and development of the AI systems, machines and Al computer programmes are predicted to become the major creators and inventors of the future.[4] This raises a very important question; who would own the works produced by these computers?
Copyright Over AI Inventions
The term “Artificial Intelligence” which was first coined in 1956 by John McCarthy is defined by the English Oxford Living Dictionary as “the theory and development of computer system, able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision making and translation between languages”. In simple terms, it is “the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behaviour”.[5]
Al is now largely being employed in the creation of copyrightable work worldwide and it is used as a tool to enhance human creativity. These machines and software applications also possess creative abilities like human and can create artistic designs,[6] literary works, and news articles and even compose/generate music.[7] In fact, some of these computers participate in competitions with humans; a short novel written by a Japanese computer program in 2016 reached the second round of a national literary prize.[8] This awesome ability is as a result of built-in algorithms giving them the capabilities to learn from data inputs and as a result, evolve and make decisions. These decisions may either be instructed or independently made by the computer programme. This development of intelligent machines, however, comes with attendant legal challenges.
Traditionally, the authorship or ownership of copyrightable works which are computer-generated was not in doubt. The popular belief is that since a computer is a man-made invention, it is deemed as a tool in the hand of a human creator, consequently authorship of the resultant work would belong to the human creator. The current impact of Al is starting to disrupt this seemingly rigid traditional presumption.[9]
The question of who should own the copyright of an Al creative work is still largely unanswered. There are divergent views on the point. The current position of copyright legislations worldwide is that human authorship is an indispensable requirement for copyright protection. Most copyright jurisdictions across the world only recognise natural persons and registered corporations as authors who are entitled to appropriate both economic and moral rights over the created work. In England, the Copyright Design and Patent Act makes provision for computer-generated works.[10] It provides that the author of a computer-generated work is the person by whom the arrangements for the creation of the work were undertaken. The Act grants the author 50 years protection but does not include moral rights.[11] In New Zealand, copyrights on works made by machines, belong to “whoever has undertaken the necessary provisions for the creation of the work.”[12] In other words, copyright in such work will not be conferred on the machine/Al but on the  person who created the machine. This same position holds true in the USA and Spain.
In Nigeria, copyright is conferred only on a qualified person i.e. an individual who is a citizen of or who is domiciled in Nigeria or an incorporated entity registered under Nigerian law.[13] Although the Nigerian Copyright Act makes no reference to computer-generated works, it can be deduced from the Act that only humans are capable of owning copyright over a work. Therefore, where a work is created by a machine in Nigeria, the copyright in that work will be conferred on the human inventor or programmer.
In addition to the above, the popular belief is that the ability of an Al to “independently” create copyrightable content is limited, in the sense that the invention by an Al more often than not, originates from the initial instructions or data feed to the Al by the human being, i.e., the Al makes inventions based on the instructions programmed by the human being in the form of algorithms on which the Al operates.[14] There is always a human input in the creativity process, no matter how minute, and although such human agent may not contribute to the actual creative or expressive form, he or she often predicts the end-result of the activity. Therefore, since the creative process of Al works are usually initiated by a human, it suffices to say that the copyright in the work should belong to the human creator. Furthermore, one of the major incentives for investments in the research and development of Al is the acquisition of proprietary rights in the eventual outputs of the Al.
The position of the law that only humans can own copyright was strongly affirmed by the US Court of Appeal in the notorious “Monkey Selfie” case. In that case, a UK Wildlife photographer, David Slater had in July 2011, visited a wildlife park in Indonesia to take unique pictures of some rare macaque monkeys. At some point, he intentionally left his camera on a tripod for the monkeys to explore as they seemed curious. One of the monkeys named Naruto, took the camera and snapped “selfies” of itself.[15] David Slater then went on to print and publish several copies of the pictures. An animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Slater in 2015 on behalf of Naruto for copyright infringement.[16] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the judgment of the lower Court dismissed the appeal by PETA and held that copyright protection cannot be granted to animals, being a non-human entity. This case clearly reinforces the general rule that non-human entities such as Al and other machines, are not entitled to copyright protection.
There are, nonetheless, some dissenting opinions to the above position. For example, Simon Colton, the creator of “The Painting Fool”, an AI which paints excellently well believes that artificial intelligence should be accorded authorship over the creations it makes. According to him, “If artificial intelligence is not the material owner of the fruit of its work, then it will never be more than a tool, a means of production, that software is taken seriously as a creative entity is the ultimate goal of computer creativity”.[17] Agitations are also sprouting at different levels on the need to revisit the global intellectual property law regime in view of the need to attribute copyright or other IPRs to the rightful inventor or creator – the AI! An international team led by a professor Ryan Abbott of the University of Surrey United Kingdom filed patent applications in the US, UK and the European Patent Office naming the AI system as the sole inventor. According to him, the Al had created the unique designs without any human contribution.[18]
It is also worthy of note that in January 20, 2015, the European Union formed a committee on legal issues related to the evolution of robotics and artificial intelligence. The committee proposed some Civil Law rules which was intended to guarantee the legal status of robots, which are granted the status of “electronic persons”. The proposal stated that “the most sophisticated autonomous robots could receive the status of an electronic person, with specific rights and obligations, including to amend damages they cause”.[19]
Conclusion
The impact and continuous relevance of Al in medicine, art, music, sports etc, is no longer deniable, even in Nigeria. Recently, Globacom announced its plans to launch Artificial Intelligences in its telecoms services in Nigeria.[20] The company reportedly remarked that “the AI platform would engage customers directly and assist them to get information on pressing issues.” The Glo AI platform, which will be the first of its kind in the local telecoms sector, will enable conversation in English and Pidgin through voice & text.[21]
In the nearest future, it might become extremely important to amend existing IP legal regimes in order to provide for computer-generated works and Al operation, both in Nigeria and internationally. The Law needs to clearly identify the rights, if any, attributable to the Al for its inventions. Alternatively, a computer or Al related IP legislation may be enacted to deal with the intricacies associated with authorship of Al and computer-generated works, among others.
However, as rightly pointed out elsewhere, the legislators in drafting the recommended laws should be careful not to include provisions that will stifle or destroy human creativity.[22] If the copyright legislation is amended to grant absolute copyright protection to Al and invariably personhood, this might affect human creativity. The growing sophistication and complexities involved in the Al system means that the works created by the Al could also become more sophisticated and improved compared to those made by a human being. Al inventions are already being considered as superior compared to that of humans. For example, Google recently reported that its Al created its own Al which is considered more superior than those made by humans.[23] This might end up creating a market monopoly for Al works, thereby reducing incentives for creativity by humans.
There is also the issue of liability for copyright infringement. The legislators should also make clear provisions stipulating who would be liable for copyright infringement; both civil and criminal, committed by an Al independently or in conjunction with a human being, and appropriate means of enforcement.
For further information on this article and area of law, please contact Olufunmilayo Mayowa at: S. P. A. Ajibade & Co., Lagos by telephone (+234 1 472 9890), fax (+234 1 4605092), mobile (+234.810.952.8293) or email (omayowa@spaajibade.com).

www.spaajibade.com
1]      Oluwafunmilayo Mayowa, NYSC Intern, SPA Ajibade & Co., Lagos, Nigeria.

[2]     WIPO, “Copyright” available at https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ accessed 28th October 2019. This list is inexhaustive and varies depending on the copyright law of each country. In Nigeria, section 1 of the Copyright Act 1988 Cap C28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 outlines the categories of works eligible for copyright protection.

[3]     Ibid.

[4]     Ademola Adeyanju, “The Role of Intellectual Property in Artificial Intelligence” available at http://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/x/794610/Patent/The+Role+Of+Intellectual+Property+In+Artificial+Intelligence accessed 3rd December 2019.

[5]     Merriam Webster online Dictionary “Artificial Intelligence” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial%20intelligence accessed 13th December 2019.

[6]      A group of researchers in the Netherlands in 2016 revealed a portrait called  The “Next Rembrandt”, a new

artwork created by a computer that had analysed thousands of works by the 17th-century Dutch artist Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn.

[7]     Andres Guadamuz, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright’, World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] Magazine (October 2017), available at accessed 17th August 2019.

[8]     Ibid.

[9]     Anjana Viswanath, “Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence” available on http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/852186/Patent/INTELLECTUAL+PROPERTY+AND+ARTIFICIAL accessed 11th December 2019.

[10]    Section 9(3) of the Copyright Design and Patent Act 1988 UK.

[11]    Ibid.

[12]    Section 5(2)(a) of the Copyright Act 1994 New Zealand.

[13]    Section 2(1) Copyright Act 1988 supra.

[14]    Maria Diaz “Artificial Intelligence and Copyright” available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ab3340fa-57e5-4145-afe9-110b088c9e36 accessed 12th December 2019.

[15]    Andres Guadamuz, “Can the Monkey-selfie case teach us anything about Copyright Law?” https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/01/article_0007.html accessed on 6th December 2019.

[16]    Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018).

[17]    Ibid.

[18]      Laura Butler “World first patent applications filed for inventions generated solely by artificial intelligence” https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/world-first-patent-applications-filed-inventions-generated-solely-artificial-intelligence accessed 2nd December 2019.

[19]      Maria Diaz, “Artificial intelligence and copyright”

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ab3340fa-57e5-4145-afe9-110b088c9e36 accessed 30th October 2019.

[20]    Glo set to deploy Nigeria’s 1st Artificial Intelligence in telecoms, https://www.gloworld.com/ng/latest-news/glo-set-to-deploy-nigerias-1st-artificial-intelligence-in-telecoms/ accessed 27th November 2019.

[21]    Ibid.

[22]    Ademola Adeyanju, “Role of Intellectual property in Artificial Intelligence” supra.

[23]      Kavita Iyer, “Google’s AI Creates Its Own AI That Is Superior than the Ones Made by Humans”

https://www.techworm.net/2017/12/googles-ai-creates-ai-superior-ones-made-humans.html accessed 5th December 2019.


Commissioning  of the Court of Appeal, Kano Division, Kano State: Another Giant Step for the Nigerian Judiciary – Dele Adesina SAN 

Commissioning  of the Court of Appeal, Kano Division, Kano State: Another Giant Step for the Nigerian Judiciary – Dele Adesina SAN 



The commissioning of the new Court of Appeal Complex for the Court of Appeal, Kano Division, Kano State right after the commissioning of the Calabar and Awka Divisions is another great step in reinvigorating the Nigerian Judiciary. 


I commend my Lord, the President of the Court of Appeal, Honourable Justice Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa and I congratulate the Justices of the Court of Appeal, the entire Judiciary of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Paul Usoro SAN, all the Branch Chairmen and members of the  Branches of the Nigerian Bar Association in Kano and Jigawa States and the Governments and people of Kano and Jigawa States, on the commissioning of the Court of Appeal Complex of the Court of Appeal, Kano Division, Kano State, today, Monday 10th of February, 2020.

This commissioning hereby increases the Divisions of the Court of Appeal to nineteen (19). Like I stated earlier with regards to similar commissionings this will not only aid the swift dispensation of justice and address the high number of appeals before my noble Lords at the Court of Appeal but it will restore the hope of the average Nigerian and bring justice closer to the people.

DELE ADESINA SAN, FCI. Arb