Justices at the Federal Supreme Court Cassation Bench granted Mahlet Habtewold the long-fought claim to get hold of the trademark rights of the brand Ibex, rejecting Kangaroo Plast’s claim of ownership.
Two weeks ago, the second Civil Bench of Cassation ended the four year court battle between the two over the trademark Ibex, which literally translates to walya in the Amharic language. It upholds the Supreme Court’s ruling which awarded the brand to Mahlet Habtewold, who used to be a delegate to Heineken Brewery but limited to the registration of the trademark.
Kangaroo, a company owned by the Yirga Haile family, instigated the case, filing civil charges against Mahletclaiming that the latter registered the brand to Mahlet and Welwalo Cultural Drinks in February 2011, after Mahlet submitted a request, claiming Kangaroo had failed to use the trademark for over three years.
Initially, Kangaroo obtained the brand for it’s under construction brewery plant in Modjo, 76Km east of Addis Abeba. It has been constructing the plant in a joint venture arrangement with Heineken, which later dropped from the deal following its acquisition of the state-owned breweries in Harer and Bedelle for 163.4 million dollars, and bids to launch a new brand under the name Walya.
Heineken obtained the cirtficate Walya after three years; it applied and received it when its Kilinto plant became operational.
When Kangaroo realised that the brand was applied for cancllation by Mahlet, it lodged a complaint to the Administrative Tribunal of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO), claiming that the brand should not have been cancelled . It also claimed that it did not use the trademark owing to reasons beyond its control, that is, a fire accident broke out at its sister company.
Rejecting Kangaroo’s claim, the Ethiopian IPO granted the brand to Mahlet. Aggravated by this, Kangaroo took Mahlet to the Federal High Court. It appealed for the reversal of the tribunal’s decision.
In 2015 the High Court ruled in the favour of Kangaroo, granting it the brand. Later Mahari Redai (PhD), Mahlet’s lawyer, took the case to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting for the Court’s order for the inclusion of the Ethiopian IPO in the case as a co-defendant. The Supreme Court admitted Mahlet’s request and returned the case to the High Court to proceed with the case, adding Ethiopian IPO as a co-defendant.
However, the High Court upholds its ruling in the favour of Kangaroo, which led Mahlet and the Ethiopian IPO to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the High Court’s ruling, reasoning the cancellation of Kangaroo’s hold over the brand was legitimate, which recently the Cassation Bench upheld.
Liqu Dametew (PhD), a legal expert in Competition Law & Corporate Governance, asserts that the ruling of the Justices of both the Cassation and Supreme court is legitimate.
“Fire, in no case, can be sighted as a force majeure as it was foreseen and covered by insurance,” said Liqu. “Plus, the current Commercial Code of the nation didn’t recognise conglomerated corporations.”
“We have been in a bitter battle as we stand against a monopoly,” Mahari told Fortune.
Our attempt to contact Fitsum Yirga, one of the shareholders of Kangaroo and one of the representatives of the Ethiopian IPO, bore no fruit.