INEC clarfies court verdict on ballot boxes
THE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has faulted
reports that a recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja had
invalidated the 2011 general elections and threatens the imminent Edo
State governorship elections.
According to a statement signed by the Chief Press Secretary to INEC Chairman, Kayode Robert Idowu, “the judgment is in the suit by Bedding Holdings Limited over the patent on transparent ballot boxes used in the past by the Commission, which the court issued on June 5, 2012.
“The judgment asserts the right of patent by the plaintiff, Bedding Holdings Limited, to plastic transparent ballot boxes with steel frames that was last used by INEC in the 2003 general elections. In effect, it has nothing to do with the polythene, collapsible transparent ballot boxes used for the 2011 general elections and all other elections conducted since then, including the impending Edo State governorship election.
“The court also granted an order of perpetual injunction concerning ‘electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes,’ which the Commission is not using and has no intention of using in the Edo State governorship elections.”
The court had declared as illegal the use of transparent ballot boxes and electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes for the 2011 elections by INEC and its continued use of the boxes without the consent and authority of the patent and design rights owner, Bedding Holdings Limited.
By the decision, the court implied that the use of the transparent and collapsible boxes, over which Beddings has subsisting patent and designs rights, without first seeking its consent and permission, was unlawful and a violation of the constitution, a development that may have implication on the validity of the elections so held.
Justice A. Bello held that having decided that Bedding Holdings’ Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: RP12994 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD5946 over the inventions were valid and subsisting, any use to which the boxes were put by INEC and other defendants in the case is illegal.
“By virtue of reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 (2) of the Patent and Designs Act, any action or actions whatsoever and howsoever taken or purported to have been taken by the defendants relating to the said products without the prior and express licence, consent, authority and/or approval of the plaintiff is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and is therefore, null and void,” Justice Bello held.
The judge’s decision was on a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 filed by Bedding Holdings and has the Registrar of Patents of the Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Emchai Limited, Tambco United Nigeria Limited, Anowat Project and Resources Limited, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Independent National Electoral Commission and its Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, as defendants.
The court proceeded to grant an order of perpetual injunction restraining the register of patent and its agents from registering or re-issuing the license of the plaintiff’s subsisting and valid patents and designs or any obvious derivative or imitation of the said designs over the transparent ballot boxes and electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes to the second, third and fourth defendants (Emchai, Tambco and Anowat Project) except with the plaintiff’s authority or permission.
In granting the first relief, the judge held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1), 13, 14 and 19 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: RP12994 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD5946 issued to the plaintiff since January 12, 1998 in and over the invention named Transparent Ballot Boxes by the first defendant is still valid and subsisting.
As regards relief two, the court held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1), 13, 14 and 19 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: RP12994 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD5946 issued to the plaintiff over the boxes take priority for and over any subsequent registration with respect to the transparent ballot boxes, especially the Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: NG/RD/2010/702 registered and issued by the first defendant to the third defendant (Tambco United Nigeria Limited) on October 14, 2010.
Justice Bello further held that the subsequent certification granted to Tambco was over same invention and renamed Tambco Ballot Boxes, and thereby precluded the defendants and other persons from infringing on the exclusive rights of the plaintiff in and over the said patent and designs of the plaintiff as the third defendant’s design is not new contrary to the express provisions of Section 13 (3) (a) of the Patent and Designs Act.
In granting relief three, the court held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1) and 13 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’ Certificate of Registration of Patient Rights No: RP16642 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD13841 issued to the plaintiff on November 27, 2006 in and over the invention named - Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes by the first defendant (Registrar of Patent) is still valid and subsisting.
On relief four, the court further held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1) and 13 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights RP16642 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD13841 issued to the plaintiff on November 27, 2006 in and over the invention named - Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes by the first defendant, takes priority over subsequent registration of industrial designs, especially the registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: NG/RD/2010/708 to the fourth defendant (Anowat Project) and subsequently registered by the first to the fourth defendants on October 14, 2010 in and over the same invention renamed Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box.
This finding, the court said, precluded the defendants and other persons from infringing on the plaintiff’s exclusive right, as the fourth defendant’s invention is not new to the express provision of Section 13 (3) (a) of the Patent and Designs Act.
“That by virtue of Section 1, 2, and 6 (2) of the Act, the Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: 16571 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No; RD13610 issued by the first defendant to the second defendant in and over the purported invention named Envopak Ballot Boxes on August 31, 2006 was done contrary to the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Patent and Designs Act.
According to a statement signed by the Chief Press Secretary to INEC Chairman, Kayode Robert Idowu, “the judgment is in the suit by Bedding Holdings Limited over the patent on transparent ballot boxes used in the past by the Commission, which the court issued on June 5, 2012.
“The judgment asserts the right of patent by the plaintiff, Bedding Holdings Limited, to plastic transparent ballot boxes with steel frames that was last used by INEC in the 2003 general elections. In effect, it has nothing to do with the polythene, collapsible transparent ballot boxes used for the 2011 general elections and all other elections conducted since then, including the impending Edo State governorship election.
“The court also granted an order of perpetual injunction concerning ‘electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes,’ which the Commission is not using and has no intention of using in the Edo State governorship elections.”
The court had declared as illegal the use of transparent ballot boxes and electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes for the 2011 elections by INEC and its continued use of the boxes without the consent and authority of the patent and design rights owner, Bedding Holdings Limited.
By the decision, the court implied that the use of the transparent and collapsible boxes, over which Beddings has subsisting patent and designs rights, without first seeking its consent and permission, was unlawful and a violation of the constitution, a development that may have implication on the validity of the elections so held.
Justice A. Bello held that having decided that Bedding Holdings’ Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: RP12994 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD5946 over the inventions were valid and subsisting, any use to which the boxes were put by INEC and other defendants in the case is illegal.
“By virtue of reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6 (2) of the Patent and Designs Act, any action or actions whatsoever and howsoever taken or purported to have been taken by the defendants relating to the said products without the prior and express licence, consent, authority and/or approval of the plaintiff is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and is therefore, null and void,” Justice Bello held.
The judge’s decision was on a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/82/11 filed by Bedding Holdings and has the Registrar of Patents of the Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Emchai Limited, Tambco United Nigeria Limited, Anowat Project and Resources Limited, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Independent National Electoral Commission and its Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, as defendants.
The court proceeded to grant an order of perpetual injunction restraining the register of patent and its agents from registering or re-issuing the license of the plaintiff’s subsisting and valid patents and designs or any obvious derivative or imitation of the said designs over the transparent ballot boxes and electronic collapsible transparent ballot boxes to the second, third and fourth defendants (Emchai, Tambco and Anowat Project) except with the plaintiff’s authority or permission.
In granting the first relief, the judge held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1), 13, 14 and 19 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: RP12994 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD5946 issued to the plaintiff since January 12, 1998 in and over the invention named Transparent Ballot Boxes by the first defendant is still valid and subsisting.
As regards relief two, the court held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1), 13, 14 and 19 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: RP12994 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD5946 issued to the plaintiff over the boxes take priority for and over any subsequent registration with respect to the transparent ballot boxes, especially the Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: NG/RD/2010/702 registered and issued by the first defendant to the third defendant (Tambco United Nigeria Limited) on October 14, 2010.
Justice Bello further held that the subsequent certification granted to Tambco was over same invention and renamed Tambco Ballot Boxes, and thereby precluded the defendants and other persons from infringing on the exclusive rights of the plaintiff in and over the said patent and designs of the plaintiff as the third defendant’s design is not new contrary to the express provisions of Section 13 (3) (a) of the Patent and Designs Act.
In granting relief three, the court held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1) and 13 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’ Certificate of Registration of Patient Rights No: RP16642 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD13841 issued to the plaintiff on November 27, 2006 in and over the invention named - Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes by the first defendant (Registrar of Patent) is still valid and subsisting.
On relief four, the court further held that by virtue of Section 1, 2, 6 (1) and 13 of the Patent and Designs Act, the plaintiff’s Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights RP16642 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: RD13841 issued to the plaintiff on November 27, 2006 in and over the invention named - Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes by the first defendant, takes priority over subsequent registration of industrial designs, especially the registration of Industrial Designs Rights No: NG/RD/2010/708 to the fourth defendant (Anowat Project) and subsequently registered by the first to the fourth defendants on October 14, 2010 in and over the same invention renamed Collapsible Transparent Ballot Box.
This finding, the court said, precluded the defendants and other persons from infringing on the plaintiff’s exclusive right, as the fourth defendant’s invention is not new to the express provision of Section 13 (3) (a) of the Patent and Designs Act.
“That by virtue of Section 1, 2, and 6 (2) of the Act, the Certificate of Registration of Patent Rights No: 16571 and Registration of Industrial Designs Rights No; RD13610 issued by the first defendant to the second defendant in and over the purported invention named Envopak Ballot Boxes on August 31, 2006 was done contrary to the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Patent and Designs Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment