This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 3: Well-Known Trademarks
Court of Appeal of Nigeria [2012]: Procter & Gamble Co. v Global Soap & Detergent Ind. Ltd. and Registrar of Trademarks, Case No. (2012) LPELR- 8014 (CA)
Date of judgment: January 24, 2012
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Commercial)
Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff: Procter & Gamble Company
Defendants: Global Soap and Detergent Industries Ltd., and the Registrar of Trademarks
Keywords: Well-known trademarks, non-use, TRIPS Agreement, international obligations, consumer confusion
Basic facts: In this case, the Appellant, Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), was the registered proprietor of the trademark “Ariel” in Nigeria, having obtained registration in 1969 for Class 3 goods, which cover detergents and cleaning products. Beyond Nigeria, P&G had secured more than 600 registrations for the “Ariel” brand in 120 countries, underscoring its international reputation. The dispute arose when the 1st Respondent, Global Soap & Detergent Industries Ltd., registered “Ariel Automatic” with an Atomium device in 1985, also in Class 3. P&G instituted rectification action at the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking a declaration of its exclusive rights to “Ariel” in Nigeria, an order for the expungement of the Respondent’s “Ariel Automatic” from the trademark register, and an injunction restraining the Respondent from further use of the mark. P&G argued that the Respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to its own and likely to cause confusion among consumers, and that by reason of their mark being so well known, the risk of dilution was greater.
Global Soap opposed the claim and filed a counterclaim for revocation of P&G’s “Ariel” trademark from the trademark register on the grounds of non-use. It contended that since 1969, the registered proprietor had never used the trademark in Nigeria. According to the Respondent, the entity trading under the “Ariel” name in the Nigerian market was Procter & Gamble Nigeria Ltd., which was a separate corporate body and not the registered proprietor (the international conglomerate). It therefore maintained that the Appellant had not shown evidence of genuine and continuous use of the mark in Nigeria. Global Soap also asserted that its own registration of “Ariel with Atomium Device” was lawfully obtained after a proper registry search, advertisement, and in the absence of any opposition. It further claimed to have used the trademark consistently in Nigeria and across other ECOWAS countries since 1985.
The Federal High Court dismissed P&G’s claims and partially upheld the counterclaim, holding that P&G had failed to prove continuous use of the mark in Nigeria. Dissatisfied with this outcome, P&G appealed to the Court of Appeal. The central questions before the appellate court included whether the use of the trademark by a subsidiary could be attributed to the proprietor, whether the mark “Ariel” was entitled to protection as a well-known trademark, and the extent to which international obligations such as the TRIPS Agreement could influence the interpretation of Nigeria’s Trademarks Act.
Held On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the use of the trademark by P&G’s Nigerian subsidiary amounted to valid use by the proprietor, recognizing an agency relationship. The Court emphasized that use by an authorized subsidiary or successor can suffice as genuine use under the Trademarks Act, as it would be difficult to construe otherwise.
Relying on judicial precedent and principles of international obligations, the Court recognized “Ariel” as a well-known mark, meriting protection despite the non-use claim. In doing so, the Court highlighted Article 16(3) of the TRIPS Agreement on the protection of well-known marks against dilution and confusion, even across dissimilar goods/services. Although TRIPS has not been domesticated into Nigerian law under Section 12 of the Constitution, the Court noted Nigeria’s obligations as a WTO member and adopted a liberal interpretive approach, treating TRIPS as persuasive authority in aligning domestic law with international best practices.
In essence, and per her judgment, Ogunwunmiju, J.C.A notably pronounced on the need for Nigerian Courts to protect well-known trademarks. This is reproduced verbatim below:
Appellant's counsel argued that Nigeria as a treaty member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has, by reason of its membership, agreed to shape its domestic laws and policies in a manner consistent with Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights' (TRIPS Agreement 1994). As such, there is a presumption of a national will to align with the provisions of the agreement. Section 2 of the Agreement which deals with trademarks, counsel reinforced, requires in general terms that member countries protect well-known marks. Without being able to confirm executive or legislative ratification of this TRIP agreement as binding on Nigeria it is difficult to interpret the law in that record. However, the jurisprudence that seems to run through our case law in Nigeria has favoured liberalism in interpreting trademark Act to favour a proprietor of a named brand. 1 am persuaded by that approach. I feel that Nigerian courts must align with the comity of nations to protect well known trademarks. We must enforce the Trademarks laws and understand the raison d'etre of the laws which ensures protection of brand names from imitation and the like. The appellant's trade A mark is not only well-known internationally, it has also been the subject of prior legal registration under the Trademarks Act in Nigeria. I feel strongly that the Trademark, Ariel associated with the appellant should enjoy the protection of the courts."
Relevant holdings in relation to well-known trademarks: This is itemized below:
Relevant Legislation:
· The Trademarks Act, Cap T13, LFN 2004.
· Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995, 1869 UNTS 299.
· Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed 20 March 1883, as revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967, and amended 28 September 1979, 828 UNTS 305.