Media personality Willis Raburu has suffered a setback in his legal battle against a top telecommunication company after the High Court in Nairobi overturned a lower court ruling that had awarded him Ksh6.5 million for alleged trademark infringement over the use of the word 'Bazu'.
In a judgment delivered by the High Court, Justice Linus Kassan set aside the earlier ruling of the Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court, which had found the telco guilty of unlawfully using the word 'Bazu' in marketing its data bundles.
The court held that the Magistrate’s Court had no jurisdiction to handle trademark disputes under the Trademarks Act.
Raburu had moved to court in 2023, accusing the telco of using the term without authorisation in its popular bundles campaign.The journalist claimed that the company's marketing strategy infringed on his registered trademark, which he had secured in several classes covering clothing, business, and telecommunication services.
He also argued that the mobile service provider’s use of the word amounted to passing off and misrepresentation, misleading consumers into believing that he had endorsed the product or collaborated with the company.
Bazu Trademark
In his suit, Raburu sought a permanent order, damages for infringement, and an account of profits allegedly made by the company through the campaign.
The lower court later awarded him Ksh5 million in special damages and Ksh1.5 million in general damages, a decision the company later appealed.
The telco's lawyers, however, told the High Court that the term 'Bazu' is generic Sheng slang widely used in Kenyan pop culture to describe someone influential, stylish, or successful, and could not be monopolised by any one person.
The company also argued that the trial court lacked the legal authority to determine trademark matters, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court or the Registrar of Trademarks.
Justice Kassan agreed with the company, ruling that the Chief Magistrate’s Court acted beyond its powers in determining the trademark dispute.
"Under Section 49 of the Trademarks Act, the jurisdiction to hear and determine such matters lies with the High Court," the judge noted in the judgment.
The court further observed that the earlier decision to transfer the case from the High Court to the lower court was made in error, as such a transfer was not permitted by law.
Following the ruling, Raburu’s case against the company was struck out, and the High Court ordered that costs be awarded to the mobile service provider. by