SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kenya Wine Agencies Limited v Mount Kenya Breweries Limited [2020] KEIPT 129 (KLR)

[2020] KEIPT 129 (KLR) KEIPT
Read PDF
Court
KEIPT
Case number
129
Citation
[2020] KEIPT 129 (KLR)
Decided
3 June 2020
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeIndustrial Property DisputePostureInterim Injunction ApplicationCoramBrown Kairaria - Chairman, Wycliffe Swanya - Member, Pauline Mudeshi - Member, Brettah Muthuri - Member, Dr. Frasia Wangari - Member
We allow the Applicant's application dated 29 April 2020 with costs to the applicant.

Facts

Kenya Wine Agencies Limited (KWAL) filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain Mount Kenya Breweries Limited (MKBL) from infringing KWAL's industrial design No. 1093, a shape and configuration of a bottle used for Kibao Vodka. KWAL alleged that MKBL was using bottles embodying KWAL's design for its Sparkler Vodka, which KWAL claimed constituted infringement and passing off.

Issues

  • Whether KWAL's industrial design No. 1093 has been infringed by MKBL
  • Whether KWAL will suffer irreparable loss that cannot be compensated by damages
  • Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favor of granting an interim injunction

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that KWAL's complaint of infringement is not idle and that KWAL has a statutory right to the industrial design No. 1093 which is infringed by the presence of Sparkler Vodka bottles in the market. The balance of convenience tilts in favor of granting an interim injunction.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Interim injunction to restrain MKBL from further infringing and using KWAL's industrial design No. 1093

Remedies

  • Interim injunction

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Industrial Property Act
  • Civil Procedure Act
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case