M-KOPA wins trademark case against former agent imitating its name and logo

M-KOPA, a leading Kenyan asset financing startup, has won a landmark trademark case against a former agent who registered a business with a strikingly similar name and logo. The agent, John Waweru Njenga, operated MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories, a phone and accessories business that copied M-KOPA’s branding to capitalise on its established market presence. The suit, filed by M-KOPA in August 2023, highlights a worrying trend in Kenya where smaller companies adopt names and logos similar to well-known brands to attract unsuspecting customers. On January 23, High Court Judge Peter Mulwa ruled in favor of M-KOPA, determining that Njenga’s business had infringed on its trademark and caused brand dilution by misleading consumers into thinking the two companies were affiliated. In his ruling, Judge Mulwa pointed out that the names “MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories” and “M-Kopa Kenya Limited” were so similar that the average customer could easily confuse the two. This confusion could lead consumers to mistakenly believe the two businesses were connected or partners. “Having considered the names MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories and M-Kopa Kenya Limited, I note a striking similarity between them. In my view, the average customer may not immediately discern the difference between the two and may, therefore, believe that both represent the same product or service,” Judge Mulwa stated in his judgment. The court also found that MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories had used M-KOPA’s logo to advertise its products and services, further violating trademark laws.  Trademark and copyright violations have long been an issue in Kenya’s informal markets, especially in urban areas like Nairobi. Poor enforcement of intellectual property laws allows unscrupulous traders to imitate the identities of successful companies, misleading customers and benefiting from the hard-earned trust that these brands have built.  In M-KOPA’s case, the company’s legal battle was costly but necessary to protect its reputation. Court filings showed that Njenga’s business was riding on M-KOPA’s success, leveraging its established brand to drive sales of phones and accessories. Judge Mulwa’s ruling highlights the need for stronger intellectual property protections in Kenya. While trademark infringement cases are common, the lack of strict enforcement and prolonged court cases often allow these infringements to continue unchecked, undermining the ability of businesses to protect their trademarks and, ultimately, their revenue. “These acts constitute trademark infringement, as they confuse the plaintiff’s customers and undermine its exclusive rights to its mark. It dilutes the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s brand and misleads the public into believing that the defendant’s business is affiliated or authorised by the plaintiff,” Judge Mulwa ruled.