Kenyan asset financing company M-KOPA has successfully defended its brand identity in a trademark case against a former agent accused of using a similar name and logo to mislead customers. The ruling, delivered on January 23 by High Court Judge Peter Mulwa, found that John Waweru Njenga’s business, MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories, had deliberately imitated M-KOPA’s branding to gain an unfair market advantage.
The legal battle, which began in August 2023, is part of a broader struggle in Kenya against intellectual property infringement, where smaller businesses adopt the names and logos of established brands to exploit consumer trust. The court determined that Njenga’s use of “MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories” was likely to confuse customers into believing the two companies were connected.
“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.
Beyond the name, M-KOPA also proved that Njenga’s business had used its logo to advertise mobile phones and accessories, further strengthening the case for trademark infringement. Intellectual property violations remain a significant issue in Kenya, particularly in urban centres like Nairobi, where counterfeit goods and brand impersonation are common due to lax enforcement.
M-KOPA’s case underscores the challenges businesses face in protecting their brand identity. Legal documents revealed that MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories leveraged M-KOPA’s market reputation to drive sales, blurring the lines between legitimacy and deception.
The court’s decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the importance of intellectual property rights in Kenya’s business landscape. While the ruling is a win for M-KOPA, it also highlights the need for stricter enforcement of trademark laws to deter future violations.
Judge Mulwa’s final ruling stressed the impact of such infringements on established businesses. “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.”
