Background
On 23rd March 2025, the Federal High Court in Lagos ordered MTN Nigeria Communications Limited to pay N840,000,000 (Eight Hundred and Forty Million Naira) in damages to Citilink Accesscorp Limited for infringing its registered trademark "WEBPLUS." The case marked FHC/L/CS/1124/2014, centered on MTN's unauthorised use of "MTN WEBPLUS" and "WEB+," which Citilink argued mimicked its trademark, causing brand dilution and loss of business. This judgement marks a significant development in Nigeria's intellectual property (IP) enforcement, highlighting the judiciary's stance on trademark protection in the corporate sector.
Legal Issues in the Dispute
The dispute was adjudicated under Nigeria's Trademarks Act, Chapter T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, which governs trademark registration and enforcement.
Key legal issues considered include:
- Expired Trademarks: The position of the law on expired trademarks was considered by the Court. Under the Nigerian Trademarks Act, once a trademark is registered, it is valid for an initial term of seven (7) years and is renewable for successive periods of fourteen (14) years (Section 23, Trademarks Act, Cap T13, LFN 2004). If not renewed, the registration lapses and is bound to be removed from the register of trademarks.
In this case, and according to available facts, Citilink's trademark registration expired in 2008 and was not renewed until 2014. MTN therefore sought to rely on the statutory lifespan of a registered trademark by arguing that Citilink lost the exclusive right to the trademark having failed to renew same within the timeframe allowed by law. However, the Court rejected MTN's argument and ruled that a party does not lose right to its trademark until same has been removed from the register of trademarks. Thus, it is now settled law that upon expiration of a trademark, an application for renewal may be brought at any time before such trademark is removed from the register of trademarks.
- Defenses of Honest and Concurrent Use: The court also had to rule on whether the defence of 'honest and concurrent use' could avail MTN. MTN had argued that its 2012 application for "MTN WEBPLUS" was made without deceptive intent and in good faith. However, the court rejected the argument due to the nature of similarity and propensity for confusion by unsuspecting members of the public.
- Infringement and Likelihood of Confusion: Citilink argued that having registered "WEBPLUS" in 2001 under Class 9 (covering technological and electronic goods) at the Trademarks Registry, with a renewal in 2014, it has exclusive right to the use of the trademark. It further contended that MTN's use of "MTN WEBPLUS" infringed this right. In its defense, MTN argued that its trademarks were registered and being used without any intent to deceive or cause confusion.
The court resolved this issue in favour of Citilink and held that that "MTN WEBPLUS" was confusingly similar to "WEBPLUS," leading to consumer confusion and harm to Citilink's brand.
- Jurisdiction over trademark disputes: MTN challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to adjudicate over the dispute between the parties, arguing that there was a pending matter before the Trademark Tribunal. Again, the court rejected MTN's argument and reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over trademark disputes as provided under Section 251(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). This is not a novel issue of law but one which further entrenches existing decisions on the same issue.
In exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction, the court awarded N840,000,000 (Eight Hundred and Forty Million Naira) in general damages (calculated at N70 million per year from 2014 to 2025) against MTN, 15% annual interest until fully paid, and a perpetual injunction barring MTN from using "WEBPLUS" or similar marks in Classes 9, 16, and 38. Requests for special damages (N10 million for legal fees) and server destruction were denied due to insufficient proof.
- Role of the Trademark Registry: The Registrar of Trademarks was joined as a defendant, as Citilink challenged the registry's failure to prevent MTN's registration of similar marks. The court ordered the Registrar to refrain from issuing certificates for any future application containing "WEBPLUS" or its variants, particularly in classes 9, 16, and 38. This part of the judgement underscores systemic lapses in trademark conflict detection and emphasises the need for improved scrutiny in the Trademark Registry's examination processes.
This judgement reinforces the Nigerian judiciary's commitment to upholding IP rights, particularly in high-stakes corporate disputes. The court's rejection of MTN's 'honest concurrent use' defense signals a strict interpretation of trademark exclusivity, prioritising the registered proprietor's rights, consistent with the 'first-to-file' principle that underpins the Trademarks Act. The substantial damages award of awarded N840,000,000 (Eight Hundred and Forty Million Naira) reflects the judiciary's recognition of long-term harm caused by infringement, including loss of business and brand dilution over a decade.
A novel judgement on the position of the law in relation to expired marks was also one of the highlights of this dispute. It is our position that until the judgement is reversed on appeal, it remains the law on the subject.
Conclusion
The Federal High Court's judgement in favour of Citilink Accesscorp Limited sets a robust precedent for trademark enforcement in Nigeria. By awarding significant damages and issuing a perpetual injunction, the court underscores the importance of protecting registered trademarks against unauthorised use, even by major corporations. The case also highlights the need for systemic reforms in Nigeria's IP administration to prevent registration conflicts and enhance efficiency.
For businesses, this judgment emphasises the importance of thorough trademark searches and respect for existing registrations to avoid costly litigation. For the Trademarks Registry, it serves as a call to improve conflict detection and streamline processes. As Nigeria's digital economy grows, such cases will likely shape the legal landscape, ensuring that IP rights remain a cornerstone of innovation and competition.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
