Adams Advisory - Africa Update 2020

Brand identification training, Port Louis
Some noteworthy comments of the Tribunal are the following:
• PIDTA [Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Act 2002] was introduced in Mauritius to show the commitment of
the Government to create an investment friendly environment in the country, while at the same time meeting their
obligations towards the international community.
• It is squarely up to an applicant for expungement to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the registration of the
relevant mark is contrary to one or more of the provisions of PIDTA. The onus of proof does not shift to the registrant
upon mere bald allegations from the applicant. Furthermore, expungement applications must be assessed at the
date of the application for expungement.
• The Tribunal also took cognizance of the fact that the trade mark registrant had registered the same mark in several
other countries to support the finding that the relevant mark is not descriptive or non-distinctive.
• The registration of a company name is an entirely separate issue from the trade mark registration procedure – the
registration of a company name does not provide a company with an exclusive right to use the name, or with priority
right to register it as a trade mark. It also does not mean that the company name would be considered distinctive
for trade mark registration purposes. This statement should be seen as a wake-up call to existing businesses to also
register their corporate names in Mauritius, if they have not already done so.
• Fictitious places names are not geographically descriptive or unregistrable as trade marks.
• With respect to marks contrary to morality or public order, the position in Mauritius stretches beyond the limits set
in decisions of the European Courts, and that morality must be interpreted to include the social and financial
considerations (i.e. sharp business practice), in addition to the traditional criminal and religious considerations.
In all, international industrial property rights owners
(particularly those who own trade mark rights) should
take comfort in the strong comments of the Tribunal and
its willingness to be guided by international precedents in
arriving at its decision, which decision ultimately protected
a foreign brand owner over a local company. It is hoped
that this judgment will spur on / guide other judicial officers
and law enforcement officials to adopt a similar policy
guided mindset when dealing with intellectual property
rights matters.
Anti-counterfeiting training
During November 2019, we travelled to Port Louis in Mauritius
to conduct Brand Identification Training with officials of the
Mauritius Revenue Authority (“MRU”) as part of the annual
REACT workshop.
The Workshop was well attended by the various officials
from the MRU and the attendees expressed that this
type of training is vitally important for them to effectively
conduct their job. In accordance with this request, we are in
discussions with the MRU to conduct further sessions during
the course of 2020.
30 | AFRICA UPDATE 2020