InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Africa: Trade marks in Sierra Leone

There are some serious problems with trade mark law in Sierra Leone, which we will examine in this article.

The Trade Marks Act 2014

Trade marks are governed by the Trade Marks Act of 2014. The Act replaced the Trade Marks Cap 244 (the Old Act). On the face of it things look good, with the Act having many of the features that one expects in modern trade mark legislation. For example:

  • A trade mark is described as something that must be capable of distinguishing, and it includes words, personal names, letters, numerals and figurative elements;
  • Anyone claiming to be the proprietor of the trade mark can file an application;
  • Priority can be claimed;
  • There is reference to the Nice classification and the fact that an application is to be accompanied by a "list of goods and services";
  • There is provision for the registration of collective marks;
  • There is full examination, publication and opposition;
  • An application can be refused on the basis of a similar mark for similar goods;
  • An application can be refused if it clashes with a well-known mark or a trade name;
  • The registration term is 10 years;
  • A registration can be cancelled for five years' non-use.
  • The infringement right extends to similar goods;
  • Damages can be awarded for infringement;
  • Deliberate infringement is a criminal offence;
  • The legislation deals with trade names, unfair competition and false trade descriptions;
  • The legislation gives specific recognition to international trade mark agreements signed by Sierra Leone – the country has been a member of the Madrid Protocol since 1999;
  • The legislation makes provision for an IP Tribunal, which is given considerable powers – we will discuss the IP Tribunal in greater detail later.

There are no rules

Despite the fact that we are now in the latter half of 2017, the authorities in Sierra Leone have still not published any Rules under the Act. The Registrar does not see this as a problem, pointing out that Section 60 of the Act provides that the Rules that were passed under the Old Act will continue to apply until they are revoked or amended.

But the failure to publish new Rules is in fact very problematic. Not only are the old Rules scant, but they refer to and incorporate the old British classification system (50 classes of goods, no services). So how can these Rules apply to legislation that makes specific reference to services and to the Nice classification system?

We are left with an absurd and totally undesirable situation, with the Registrar still applying the old British classification system. This is not only inconvenient, but it also means that no service mark protection is available.

Who is making the decisions?

Under the Act the IP Tribunal has considerable powers, in that it is authorised to hear appeals, invalidations, infringements and criminal offences, whereas the Registrar is authorised to hear oppositions and non-use actions. Under the Old Act the Registrar also had limited powers, with the Supreme Court being charged with issues of distinctiveness, as well as oppositions, rival claims to the same mark, honest concurrent use claims and rectifications.

The IP Tribunal has, however, not yet been established. Section 60 of the Act provides that the Supreme Court will exercise the functions of the IP Tribunal until the new body is established. This is, of course, fine, but there are suggestions that the Registrar might be of the view that she is able to exercise the functions of the IP Tribunal in the interim. This is something that will need to be watched carefully.

An extraordinary situation

What we have in Sierra Leone is an extraordinary situation – the Act is being applied in terms of issues such as what constitutes a trade mark, registration procedures and registration terms. Yet two of the most important changes contained in the Act cannot be implemented – use of the Nice classification system and the registration of service marks. This obviously has serious implications for companies that do business in Sierra Leone, particularly those involved in the services sector. We hope that the authorities in Sierra Leone deal with these issues very shortly.

Wayne Meiring

Spoor & Fisher Jersey
Africa House, Castle Street
St Helier, Jersey JE4 9TW
Channel Islands
Tel: +44 1534 838000
Fax: +44 1534 838001



Managing IP


ManagingIP profile

RT @mdloney: Michael Shore, the lawyer behind Allergan’s controversial transfer of patents to a Native American tribe, vowed to "take a wre…

Nov 22 2017 07:33 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Our weekly IP news round-up includes stories about Finjan, Blue Coat, Fox Television, design patents, Polaroid, Fuj…

Nov 22 2017 02:01 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Confidentiality clubs becoming more common in Indian patent disputes The Delhi High Court r…

Nov 22 2017 10:00 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog

null null null

null null null

October 2017

Courts grapple with scope of patent protection

The Supreme Court’s decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly introduced a doctrine of equivalents and arguably also established a doctrine of prosecution history estoppel in the UK. We look at the law across Europe, and the impact the decision might have. Kingsley Egbuonu, Michael Loney and James Nurton set the scene

Most read articles