E-VOLUTION INTERNATIONAL v. SPYDER LEE ENTERTAINMENT & THE REGISTRAR – GENERAL
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Intellectual Property Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a dispute between the Plaintiff, who claims registration of the name 'Peoples Choice Awards' as a trademark, and the 1st Defendant, who registered the name 'Peoples Choice Awards' as a business name. The core issue was to determine who holds the exclusive right to use the contested name. The court held in favor of the Plaintiff, granting it all sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs based on its trademark registration under the Trademarks Act, 2004 (Act 664). The court dismissed the 1st Defendants counterclaims, emphasizing that trademark registration confers broader proprietary and exclusive usage rights than a business name registration. The statutory responsibilities of the Registrar-General were criticized for negligence in allowing both registrations.
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
[1] In this case, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory reliefs, as well as Costs. At its root, the action arises from a dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, in respect of the use of the name “People’s/Peoples Choice Awards”. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is the rightful and the bona fide owner/registrant under the Trade Mark Act of 2004 (Act 664) and that the 1st Defendant has no rights to the use of the name as against the Plaintiff.
[2] By its writ of summons the Plaintiff Company claims against the Defendants the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the bona fide owner of the name “Peoples Choice Awards” as a registered trade mark.
b. A declaration that the registration of “People’s Choice Awards” as a business name in favour of the 1st Defendant is likely to be confused by the public with the registered trade mark of the Plaintiff Company.
c. A declaration that the series of advertisements of the name “Peoples Choice Awards” run at the instance of the 1st Defendant is an infringement of the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights in the said name as a trademark.
d. An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to remove and delete the name “People’s Choice Awards” from its records in favour of the 1st Defendant and a consequential order restraining the 2nd Defendant from registering the said name in favour of any other person or entity.
e. An order directed at the 1st Defendant to cease and desist forthwith from further publication, announcement or advertisements of the said programme or any preparation aimed at its organization or performance.
f. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's proprietary interest in the name “Peoples Choice Awards”.
g. Costs inclusive legal expenses.
[3] After the service of the writ and its accompanying statement of claim on the Defendants, appearances were entered after which statements of defence were filed by the Defendants. The 1st Defendant in particular counterclaimed against the Plaintiff for:
i. A declaration that the name People’s Choice Awards is a Registered Business Name of the 1st Defendant.
ii. A declaration that Plaintiff is not the bona fide owner of the Name People’s Choice Awards as it was registered as a trademark after 1st Defendant had registered same as a business name.
iii. An order directed at Plaintiff to desist forthwith from using the name People’s Choice Awards as