The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday issued an order permanently restraining a company, eNaira Payment Solutions Ltd, from parading itself as the registered proprietor of the trademark, “eNaira.”
In his judgement, Judge James Omotosho also granted a
counter-claim of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and awarded N10 million
against the company.
Mr Omotosho ordered eNaira Payment Solutions Ltd to
immediately change its name to another distinct name that does not use the word
“Naira,” the Nigerian currency.
The judge agreed with the defendants’ arguments that though
the company had been incorporated since 2004, it had a misleading name.
He held that “the name chosen by the plaintiff on its
incorporation is in the circumstances unregistrable due to the misleading
nature of the name which suggests government’s patronage.”
The judge held that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC)
was, therefore, right to issue the directive to the company to change its name
in line with Section 852(2)(a) and (b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act
(CAMA), 2020.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that eNaira Payment
Solutions Ltd had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1113/2021, sued the CBN, the
Registrar of Trademarks and the Registrar General of CAC.
In the amended suit filed on 5 April 2024, the plaintiff
brought 17 prayers including a N90.10 billion in damages.
It prayed the court to restrain the defendants from
withdrawing the trademark, “eNaira,” from it and stopping the CBN from claiming
or conferring ownership of the name on itself.
It described the acts of the defendants as unconstitutional
takeover of its personal property which it had maintained for over 20 years,
among other reliefs.
But the CBN filed a further amended statement of defence and
a counter-claim on 5 July 2024, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1591/2021.
The central bank sought five reliefs, including, a perpetual
order restraining the company from parading itself as the registered proprietor
of the Trademark “eNaira”.
The CBN sought an order directing the company to pay it N20
billion as general damages for the colossal global embarrassment caused by the
company claiming proprietorship of a trademark that does not belong to it.
It also sought an award of N200 million for the cost of
prosecuting the suit.
Besides, the CAC, in its statement of defence and
counter-claim filed on 2 May 2024, sought an order directing the company to
change its name to another distinct name without the use of the word, “Naira.”
In establishing its case, the plaintiff called one witness,
the CBN and CAC also called a witness each while parties tendered documentary
evidence as exhibits.
Delivering a consolidated judgement in the suits, Justice
Omotosho observed that the Trademark Registry, through a letter dated Nov. 15,
2021, had written to eNaira Ltd canceling and withdrawing the acceptance
letters issued to the company in respect of applications for eNaira in class 36
and 42.
He observed that the registry had directed for the
withdrawal on the grounds that “eNaira is a national intellectual property and
constitutes a symbol and national asset of Nigeria.”
According to the judge, as it stands, the plaintiff has no
greater legal right to the trademark than the 1st defendant.
“A party that has no legal right cannot be entitled to an
injunction
“The purport of this is that prima facie, the plaintiff has
no valid trademark to the exclusive use of the eNaira trademark,” he said.
Besides, the judge held that by Section 852(2) of CAMA, CAC
is at liberty not to register a company with names which suggest that the
company enjoys government patronage.
“The ‘eNaira’ name is so closely linked to the legal tender
of Nigeria which is exclusively controlled by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
“The plaintiff with the name ‘eNaira’ even though it had
been incorporated since 2004, has a misleading name.
“An average person on the street is most likely to think
that the plaintiff is an agent of the Federal Government or the Central Bank of
Nigeria.
“The proposed business of the plaintiff which according to
the evidence in chief of PW-1 is the creation and control of a digital fiat
currency on their electronic payment platform.
“This, no doubt, creates the impression that the plaintiff
has the authority of the Federal Government of Nigeria to issue and control a
digital form of the Naira.
“A misleading name is a ground for the 3rd defendant (CAC)
to direct a company to change its name,” he said.
Justice Omotsoho noted that the section of the law also
gives CAC the power to change any company’s name which must be complied with
within six weeks from the date of the directive.
“The plaintiff had six weeks to comply with the directive
which was issued 9th December, 2021.
“The plaintiff has however not complied with this
directive,” he said.
The judge held that allowing the plaintiff to have control
to the name is tantamount to surrendering Nigerian sovereignty to a private
company, citing sections of the Trademarks Act to back his decision.
According to the judge, the world today is becoming more
digitally advanced and this is even more prevalent in the financial sector
where there is a large adoption of cryptocurrencies by nations around the
world.
“Any digital currency with the name ‘eNaira’ will no doubt
create the impression that it is an official digital form of the Naira.
“The plaintiff cannot assert control over the ‘eNaira’ name
or issue it.
“This would be disastrous for the Nigerian economy and will
create skepticism among users as it is not guaranteed by the Central Bank of
Nigeria.
“The claims of the plaintiff are therefore bound to fail
while the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants will succeed on the
strength of the evidence before this court.
“In final analysis, this court will rule against the
plaintiff as the claim is incompetent on grounds that it was not brought under
the appellate jurisdiction of this court.
“Furthermore, the facts and the law are against the
plaintiff.
“In contrast, the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd
defendants succeeds,” the judge ruled.
Mr Omotosho, consequently, dismissed the eNaira Payment
Solutions Ltd’s suit and declared that the company was not the registered owner
of the trademark “eNaira.”
He declared that the plaintiff, not being an agency of
government or an entity licensed to issue legal tender in Nigeria, was not
entitled to register the trademark “eNaira.”
The judge, who ordered the company to change its name to
another distinct name without the use of the word, “Naira,” also gave an order
of perpetual injunction restraining the firm from parading itself as the
registered proprietor of the trademark “eNaira.”
(NAN)
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com