Africa: Kenyan authorities propose changes to the ACA and IPA

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Africa: Kenyan authorities propose changes to the ACA and IPA

The Kenyan authorities have published a bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 (the Bill), which proposes significant changes to two pieces of IP legislation.

The amendments proposed to the Anti-Counterfeit Act 2008 are controversial. They effectively create a dual trade mark registration system. All trade marks relating to goods being imported into Kenya will need to be recorded with the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA). What makes dual registration mandatory is the fact that it will be an offence for an importer to import goods bearing a trade mark that has not been recorded with the ACA, and a trade mark registration will be required in order for the trade mark to be recorded at the ACA. The recordal provisions apply not only to trade marks but also to "copyrights, trade names or any other form of intellectual property rights", despite the fact that there is no copyright registration in Kenya. Importers will be issued with a "certification mark" in the form of an anti-counterfeit security device. The ACA will have the power to seize and destroy any imported goods that do not bear the anti-counterfeit device.

The Bill creates some interesting offences. It will be an offence to import into Kenya any unbranded goods except raw materials. It will be an offence to fail to or falsely declare "the quantity or the intellectual property right subsisting in any goods being imported into Kenya."

The amendments proposed to the Industrial Property Act 2001 (IPA) deal with patents and designs. For patents, the Bill says that a patentee must disclose "the best mode" for carrying out the invention, and that in cases of joint ownership, third parties may only carry out certain acts with joint permission from joint owners. For industrial designs, the Bill specifically excludes anything that serves solely to obtain a technical result, methods or principles of manufacture or construction, and creations of a purely artistic nature. It also introduces some new definitions, a new novelty provision, and provisions regarding the confidentiality of an application before publication.

Hopefully the Kenyan authorities will reconsider some of the amendments proposed to the Anti-Counterfeit Act.

Wayne Meiring


Spoor & Fisher JerseyAfrica House, Castle StreetSt Helier, Jersey JE4 9TWChannel IslandsTel: +44 1534 838000

Fax: +44 1534 838001

info@spoor.co.ukwww.spoor.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article