Abstract
The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement) recommends an involvement of administrative or judicial authorities in a prevention of trademark infringement that can arise through the importation of goods. The Rwandan intellectual property law (IP Law) provides for a complementarity between courts and the Customs Authority to that end. TRIPS Agreement recommends a destruction of infringing goods as an effective deterrence against trademark infringement. However, it provides also for possibilities of release of goods before a determination on whether goods are infringing or not, and it cautions to take into account the seriousness of the case and interests of third parties.
The overall purpose for this article is an analysis of challenges surrounding the border protection of trademark in Rwanda and away forward for better protection. The guiding research questions consist of the question on how to balance between the rights of the importer to have goods released into free circulation and the rights of a trademark holder to have a decided suspension of goods maintained. There is a question of a silence of the law on how many times a court can decide an extension of suspension of release of goods. Moreover, there is a question on how the court should take into account an effective deterrence of the infringer and the rights of third parties in a use of its discretional powers to decide a non-destruction of goods in the substance of the case. An effective approach to these research questions led to start with an overview on trademark infringement to facilitate an investigation of challenges relating to border measures against trademark infringement, and ultimately, an analysis of challenges relating to remedies in the situation the court deciding the case in substance finds goods to be infringing.
The study finds out that a right of inspection of goods by the right holder after their suspension from release into circulation by the Customs Authority can remove a suspicion on whether goods are infringing, leading to a definite release of the goods. It can also boost confidence for the right holder to go on with the case in substance which should involve an extension of suspension of release of goods to enable a discussion of any court remedy when the court finds the goods to be infringing. Concerning a number of times parties can go to court in the context of extension of suspension of release of goods, the study recommends an amendment of the IP Law to enable a suspension until the case is decided by courts at the final stage, and a complementary solution for the court administration to provide closer dates for cases of border protection of trademark. As to the disposal of infringing goods out the channels of commerce, an alternative to a destruction of infringing goods that puts forward a total disconnection of the goods from the infringer should aim at a channeling of goods that are not sub standards to the population in need. In brief, the article concludes recommending an IP Law amendment and a capacity building for enforcing organs.
Main Text: View PDF Download PDF
References
1. Bone, Robert G., ‘Taking the Confusion out of “Likelihood of Confusion”: Toward a More Sensible Approach to Trademark Infringement’, Northwestern University Law Review, 106.3 (2012), 1307–78.
2. Buydens, M., L’application des droits de propriété intellectuelle: Recueil de jurisprudence, OMPI, 2014.
3. CA, ‘R.comAA 00086/2018/CA’, 2019.
4. Catherine W. Ng, ‘The Law of Passing Off – Goodwill Beyond Goods’, 2016, 817–42 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0510-9>.
5. CCLAP, ‘Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 Relating to the Civil, Commercial,
6. Labour and Administrative Procedure’, 2018.
7. Corgill, Dennis S, ‘Measuring the gains of trademark infringement,’
8. Fordham Law Review 65, no. 5 (April 1997): 1909-1986.
9. EAC, ‘East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004 (revised edition 2018)’, 1, 2018.
11. EUIPO, ‘The Likelihood of Confusion and the Likelihood of Association in Benelux and Community Trade Mark Law : Concepts , Interpretations and Evolutions’.
12. European Commission, Report on the EU Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 2019.
13. Harms, L. T. C., A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 2nd edition, 2008.
14. Harms, L. T. C., A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 4th Editio, 2018.
15. HCC, ‘R. com 00003/2019/HCC’, 2019.
16. ———, ‘R.com 00023/2017/CHC/HCC’, 2017.
17. ———, ‘R.com A 00004/2019/HCC’, 2019.
18. ———, ‘R.com A 00450/2019/HCC’, 2020.
19. ———, ‘R.com A 0017/2017/CHC/HCC, 2017.
20. ———, ‘R.com A 00160/2018/CHC/HCC’, 2018.
21. ———, ‘R.com A 00236/2017/CHC/HCC’, 2017, interpreted by RS/INTERT/R.com 00008/2017/CHC/HCC, 2018.
22. ———, ‘R.com A 0194/2016/CHC/HCC’, 2016.
23. ———, ‘R.com A 0215/14/HCC’, 2014.
24. ———, ‘R.com A 00614/2018/HCC, 2018.
25. ICC, ‘International Guide to IP Rights Enforcement’, First, 2006.
26. Judith Soentgen, “Disposing of counterfeit goods: unseen challenges”, in: WIPO Magazine, November 2012, available at https://www.wipo. int/wipo_magazine/en/2012/06/article_0007.html, April 7, 2021Lafrance,
27. Mary, ‘10 . Passing off and Unfair Competition Regimes Compared’, 2011,28. 195–223.
29. Lafrance, Mary, ‘10 . Passing off and Unfair Competition Regimes Compared’, 2011, 195–223.
31. Lai, Jessica C., ‘Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Look at New Zealand’, IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50.7 (2019), 792–822 <https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40319-019-00842-9>.
32. Madi, Ramzi, Colour and Sound Marks: A Brief Overview of Civil Protection in Light of Jordanian Legislation, Arab Law Quarterly, 2010, xxiv <https://doi.org/10.1163/157302510X12607945807232>.
33. MININTCO, ‘Warning Letter of 12 July 2012’, 2012.
34. New Zealand IP Office, Relative grounds - Identical or similar trade marks,
35. available at https://www.iponz.govt.nz/about-ip/trade-marks/practice-
36. guidelines/current/relative-grounds-identical-or-similar-trade-marks/, April 14,37. 2021.
38. NISR, ‘Formal External Trade in Goods Fourth Quarter’, March, 2020,39. 1–26.
40. Ongola, Bracxides Shaluma, ‘Efficacy of anti-counterfeit laws in Kenya,’41. LL.M Thesis, October, 2014.
42. RDB, ‘Expert Witness Report’.
43. Ruessmann, Laurent, and Francesca Stefania Condello, ‘The CJEU Judgment in Nokia and Philips Clarifies the Intellectual Property Rights’, Global Trade and Customs Journal, 7.4 (2009), 183–190.
44. Rwandan IP Law, ‘Law N° 31/2009 of 26/10/2009 on the Protection of Intellectual Property’, Official Gazette N° 50 Bis of 14 December 2009, Deember, 2009.
45. S.C., ‘R. com A 00004/2017/SC, 11 July 2017’, 2017.
46. TC, ‘Joint Cases R.com 0020/14/TC/NYGE and R.com 0074/14/TC/NYGE’,47. 2014.
48. ———, ‘Joint Cases R.com 01607/2018/TC, R.com 01751/2018/TC and R.com 01862/2018/TC’, 2019, corrected by RS/RECT/R.com 00023/2019/ TC, 2019.
49. ———, ‘R.com 00148/2014/TC/NYGE’, 2014.
50. ———, ‘R.com 00149/2017/TC/NYGE’, 2017.
51. ———, ‘R.com 02124/2018/TC’, 2018.
52. ———, ‘R.com 00315/2018/TC/NYGE’, 2018.
53. ———, ‘R.com 1105/15/TC/Nyge’, 2016.
54. ———, ‘R.com 000385/2017/TC/Nyge’, 2017.
55. The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015,
56. Official Gazette, March, 2013, 1–99.
57. The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union, ‘Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003’, 608, 2013, 15–34.
58. Towersey, Alan, ‘Simplified procedures for customs intellectual property
59. rights enforcement’, 11.2 (2011), 49–60.
60. WIPO, ‘Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property’
61. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-35471-6_5>.
62. WTO, ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
63. Rights (as Amended on 23 January 2017)’, January, 2017.
64. WTO, Final Act embodying the reslts of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, available at https://www.wto.org/english/ docs_e/legal_e/03-fa_e.htm, , accessed on May 29, 2021.
65. WTO, Members and observers, available at https://www.wto.org/english/ thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm#observer, accessed on May 29, 2021.
66. WTO, WTO legal texts, available at https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/ legal_e/legal_e.htm, accessed on May 29, 2021.