MADIOS v. BIC

MADIOS v. BIC

BIC's trademark registration from 2003 remained valid under transitional provisions until 25/10/2019; MADIOS Ltd imported and sold BIC-branded pens without authorization, constituting forgery under Rwandan law; MADIOS Ltd's arguments regarding expiration and lack of authorization proof were rejected; damages and procedural costs awarded to BIC were reasonable and supported by law.

Citation
RCOMA 00319/2016/CHC/HCC
Parties
Appellant/defendant: MADIOS Ltd; Respondent/plaintiff: BIC
Court
Commercial High Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
9 September 2016
Case Number
RCOMA 00319/2016/CHC/HCC
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Appeal From Nyarugenge Commercial Court to Commercial High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as baseless; first instance judgment largely upheld with minor modification to procedural damages and legal fees.
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Forgery of Trademark, Importation of Counterfeit Goods, Damages for IP Infringement
Source Language
en, rw
Intellectual Property Law Commercial Law Trademark Infringement Forgery of Trademark Importation of Counterfeit Goods Damages for IP Infringement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MADIOS Ltd

Appellant/defendant

BIC

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Appeal From Nyarugenge Commercial Court to Commercial High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BIC retained the right to claim protection for its registered mark despite alleged non-renewal
  2. 2 Whether MADIOS Ltd committed forgery by importing and selling BIC-branded pens without authorization
  3. 3 Whether damages and procedural costs claimed by both parties are justified

Ratio Decidendi

BIC's trademark registration from 2003 remained valid under transitional provisions until 25/10/2019; MADIOS Ltd imported and sold BIC-branded pens without authorization, constituting forgery under Rwandan law; MADIOS Ltd's arguments regarding expiration and lack of authorization proof were rejected; damages and procedural costs awarded to BIC were reasonable and supported by law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as baseless; first instance judgment largely upheld with minor modification to procedural damages and legal fees.

Orders

  • Any person importing BIC CRISTAL pens into Rwanda without BIC's authorization shall have such goods seized and destroyed.
  • MADIOS Ltd to pay BIC 1,000,000 Frw for procedural damages and lawyer’s fees.