A Federal High Court, Lagos, has penalized MTN Nigeria Communications Limited with punitive monetary award for passing of of WEBPLUS’ trademark of a limited liability company, Citilink Accesscorp Limited.
As a penalty for infringing of the company’s trademark, the court presided over by Justice Daniel Osiagor, ordered MTN Nigeria Communications limited to pay a general damage of N840 million, against MTN Nigeria Communications limited, the company.
Justice Osiagor who held that the general damages award is Access at N70 million par year, covered the plaintiffs (Citilink) loss of business and brand dilution, from 2014 and 2025.
The judge also ordered MTN Nigeria Communications to pay 15 percent of until the judgment sum is liquidated.
Above are the parts of the orders and declarations made by the judge while delivering judgment in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/1124/2014, filed by the Citilink Accesscorp Limited against MTN Nigeria Communications limited and the Registrar of Trademark, Patent Designs, who were used for representing all members of the class defined as being engaged in the production, marketing, distribution and sale of products and services described as MTN WEBPLUS also marked as WEBPLUS that is similar to the Plaintiff’s WEBPLUS Trademarks in class 9 with RTM 65162 by adopting or mimicking or Imitating similar to Plaintiff’s registered WEBPLUS Trademark but which are not of the Plaintiff’s Productions and services).
The plaintiff, Citilink Accesscorp Limited, had in July 17, 2024, dragged MTN Nigeria Communications Limited before the court and asked for the following reliefs: “a declaration that the plaintiff is the only rightful and legal owner, proprietor and user Trademark WEBPLUS in class 9 covered by the Certificate of Registration RTM No 65162 and the Certificate of Renewal of Registration of Trademark No RTM 65162 respectively dated January 28, 2015 and June 12, 2014 issued by the Registrar of Trademarks to the plaintiff.
“A declaration that the 1st defendant by advertising, marketing, trading, selling and offering for sale products and services in any form whatsoever, known as MTN WEBPLUS’ or MTN WEB+ or WEBPLUS’ or WEB+, infringes the plaintiff’s trademark covered by the certification of registration of Trademark RTM 65162 and Certificate of Renewal of Trademark for WEBPLUS in class 9 which belongs to the Plaintiff.
“A declaration that the 1st defendant by themselves or through their agents and privies are not entitled to infringe the plaintiff’s registered Trademark covered by Certificate of Registration of Trademark and Renewal of Trademark for WEBPLUS with RTM No 65162.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant whether acting by himself or acting by any person or group of persons claiming through him from issuing any Certificate of Registration of the Trademark WEBPLUS or WEB+ or WEBPLUS or MTN WEBPLUS or MTNWEB+ in any other guise in classes 9, 16 and 38 or any other class for that matter to the 1st defendant and or to any other person.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant whether acting by itself or by any person or group of person claiming through it from doing any further acts of infringement of the plaintiff’s Trademark WEBPLUS in class 9 through the use of MTNWEBPLUS or MTNWEB+ or WEBPLUS.
“An order for the 1st defendant to deliver all the MTN WEBPLUS or WEBPLUS products or services, all wrapper all fliers and inscriptions bearing the imitations, getup, or package not of the Plaintiff’s in the possession, custody or control of the 1st defendant and each of those on whose behalf the 1st defendants are sued, their agents, servants, or privies the use of which would be in breach of the injunction prayed for and verification upon oath that the 1st defendant have no such article so marked in their possession, system, server, custody or control.
“An order to impound by the Bailiff of this Court the engine, equipment, disc drive, internet materials, server and software equipment housing or coordinating the infringement of WEBPLUS by MTNWEBPLUS of the 1st defendant, their agents, privies or otherwise howsoever where those products are found within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“An order for seizure by the Bailiff of this Court for destruction of all the servers of the 1st defendant which hosted, still hosts, used and still being used for transmitting information, messages, advertisement, marketing details of the 1st defendant’s MTN WEBPLUS to the general public.
“Special damages in the sum of ₦10, 000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only being the cost of legal fees and other expenses and charges paid in this suit by the Plaintiff.
“General damages against the 1st defendant in the sum of ₦1, 500, 000, 000.00 (One Billion, Five Hundred Million Naira Only).
“An order for interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 15% per annum to be paid by the 1st defendant to the Plaintiff from the date of Judgment until final liquidation thereof.
“An order that the Registrar of this Court shall write the Commissioner of Police Lagos State to provide Policemen from the Nigeria Police who shall accompany the Bailiffs of this Honourable Court in order to ensure that the order made by this Honourable Court against the 1st defendant is fully complained [sic] with and to maintain the peace.”
In urging the court to discountenance the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, file a statement of defence, challenging the court jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff contended that the trademark “WEBPLUS” was registered in 2001 under Class 9 and renewed in 2014. Adding that the 1st Defendant’s use of the name “MTN WEBPLUS” constitutes an infringement.
But MTN Nigeria Communications limited, submitted that an application for the registration of “MTN WEBPLUS” and “WEB+” was made in 2012, at which time there was no knowledge of the Claimant’s mark. Adding that the Claimant’s trademark registration had lapsed between 2008 and 2014, a period during which it’s application and use of its marks commenced.
In arguing to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for being speculative and unsupported by evidence, MTN raised five issues for determination.
The issues raised by the MTN were: “whether this honourable court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of a pending action at the Trademark Tribunal.
“Whether the rights in plaintiff’s Mark continued to inure in favour of the plaintiff as the proprietor of the trademark even after the expiration of the registration of the trademark.
“Whether the plaintiff has successfully established the elements of trademark infringement to render the 1st defendant liable for infringement in this suit.
“Whether the defence of honest concurrent use avail the 1st defendant in circumstances of this case
“whether the plaintiff has led evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought?”
However, Justice Osiagor, after legally examined all the processes filed by the parties, the legal authorities cited, determined all the issues in favour of the plaintiff.
In the final analysis, Justice Osiagor held that: “the Plaintiff’s claim is meritorious, and reliefs granted, including a perpetual injunction, while and an order for the seizure and destruction of infringing instruments refused.
“The claim for special damages is also denied due to insufficient proof.
“Judgment is therefore entered in favor of the Plaintiff. Reliefs 6, 7 and 8 refused.”
