site logo

NULEC INDUSTRIES PLC V. DYSON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (2023)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Chima Centus Nweze JSC
  • Amina Adamu Augie JSC
  • Helen Moronkeji Ogunwemiju JSC
  • Tijjani Abubakar JSC
  • Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Nulec Industries Plc

Respondent:

  • Dyson Technologies Limited
Suit number: SC. 1123/2017Delivered on: 2022-05-13

Background

This case centers on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to adjudicate on trademark-related issues, specifically the registration of trademarks in Nigeria. The appellant, Nulec Industries Plc, had sought to register several trademarks related to air amplification and bladeless fan technology with the second respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks. Prior to official registration, the first respondent, Dyson Technologies Limited, lodged an opposition to these registrations. This triggered a series of legal actions culminating in appeals regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to handle the dispute.

Issues

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:

  1. Whether the Federal High Court has exclusive original jurisdiction under sections 6 and 251(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution and related statutes over civil causes arising from federal enactments pertaining to trademarks.
  2. Whether the appellant was entitled to raise jurisdictional issues at the appellate level based on the first respondent’s lack of locus standi before the Registrar of Trademarks.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal High Court does not possess original jurisdiction over matters of trademark registration and opposition to such registration. Instead, the court emphasized that the registrar must first resolve opposition before the matter can be appealed to the Federal High Court.

Court Findings

1. The court distinguished between original and appellate jurisdiction: The Federal High Court's original jurisdiction pertains to cases it hears for the first time, while its appellate jurisdiction involves reviewing decisions from lower courts or tribunals.

2. The court reiterated that the registrar of trademarks holds quasi-judicial powers and that objections to trademark registrations must be addressed initially through the registrar, not directly before the Federal High Court.

3. Citing relevant sections of the Trademarks Act and the Federal High Court Act, the court clarified that the Federal High Court’s role is limited to hearing appeals from the registrar’s decisions concerning trademark registrations.

4. The court underscored the need for litigants to pursue all remedies through the appropriate administrative channels before resorting to the courts.

Conclusion

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the appellant, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision that the Federal High Court was not the appropriate forum to address the trademark opposition dispute until the registrar had made a determination.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedural channels in trademark disputes and exemplifies the jurisdictional limitations of the Federal High Court in Nigeria. It reaffirms legal principles surrounding issues of jurisdiction, particularly regarding administrative bodies and their statutory responsibilities in trademark law.

Counsel:

  • Femi Attah, Esq. for the Appellant
  • Mark Mordi, SAN for the 1st Respondent