…As CBN prays court to dismiss suit
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, fixed May 22 to deliver judgment in a suit seeking to strip the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) of the right to ownership of the eNaira digital platform.
The suit marke,d FHC/ABJ/CS/113/2021 was filed by ENaira Payment Solutions Limited, a company registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) in 2004.
The firm insisted that the move to withdraw its registration, following the CBN’s decision in 2021 to launch the pilot scheme for its digital currency (the eNaira), amounted to a gross infringement on its rights.
According to the plaintiff, it remained a valid and existing legal entity, having complied with the statutory requirements as regards the filing of its annual returns and the payment of company income tax.
It told the court that it is the holder of the trademark “ENaira”, registered in Class 36 and Class 42.
Aside from the CBN, the CAC, and the Registrar General of Trade Marks was also listed as a defendant in the suit.
The plaintiff, among other things, prayed the court to restrain the apex bank from using or purporting to use the name “eNaira” for its product or, in any way, shape, or form, infringing or threatening to infringe the plaintiff’s trade mark or violating its corporate name.
When the case came up on Wednesday, the trial Judge, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter for judgment after the parties adopted their final written addressees.
While adopting its process, the CBN, which was represented by Mr. Damian Dodo, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the suit which it said was against the national interest.
Dodo argued that the federal government reserved the right to invalidate the registration of the plaintiff, insisting that the word “Naira” is intrinsically linked and associated with Nigeria as a country and that, the decision to withdraw the plaintiff’s registration was “to protect a national digital asset.
“The decision was made in the national interest. The word ‘Naira’ bears governmental connotations that warrant limitations.
“When you hear eNaira, what comes to your mind? Naira is a national heritage. The registration given to the plaintiff by the CAC is against Nigeria,” Dodo argued.
Likewise, the CAC, in its preliminary objection challenging the suit, told the court that the plaintiff was erroneously registered, adding that the case had become statute-barred, as it was filed two years after the cause of action arose.
Furthermore, the CAC argued that the plaintiff failed to approach the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC), a condition precedent that must be met before such a suit could be filed.
“Naira is the name of Nigeria’s currency. The name was inadvertently registered in favour of the plaintiff, and the CAC later wrote to the plaintiff asking it to come and change the name at no cost,” the Commission submitted.
Meanwhile, counsel to the plaintiff, Mr. David Ityonyman, prayed the court to dismiss the objections and uphold his client’s case.
He told the court that before the plaintiff was registered in April 2004, it made an application that was duly verified and approved by the CAC.
He added that the Registrar-General of Trademarks also gave approval after all the conditions precedent had been met, adding that no section of the Trade Marks Act provided for the withdrawal of a certificate that had been validly issued.
“A letter was written to the plaintiff in November 2021, when this case was already pending, asking it to change its name.
“This was done without granting the plaintiff a fair hearing. The plaintiff had a website, but because of allegations of infringement, the website was pulled down,” he added.
Moreover, the plaintiff argued that the source of the name Naira is a community in India and that, “Nothing stops India from having a Naira. Also, countries like the U.S. and Canada make use of dollars. None of them has laid claim to the name.
“The plaintiff had used the name Naira for a long time and enjoyed substantial goodwill before 2021, when the defendant sought to take over the name,” Ityonyman added.
After listening to the the submissions of parties, Justice Omotosho adjourned till May 22 for judgment.
END
Comments