Trademark Infringement in Nigeria: How Courts Assess Confusion, Similarity and Counterfeiting

Walk into a roadside pharmacy in Oshodi and you might find a box labelled “Panadon” sitting next to genuine “Panadol” on the shelf. The packaging uses the same blue-and-white colour scheme. The font is nearly identical. A tired, unwell shopper grabbing medication quickly may not notice the difference. In a market where counterfeit pharmaceuticals have killed people, the question of whether these two marks are confusingly similar is not an abstract legal exercise. It is a public safety question that trademark law must answer.

Understanding how Nigerian courts determine whether trademark infringement has occurred, how they assess whether one mark is too similar to another, and what defences a defendant can raise requires working carefully through section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act and the substantial body of Nigerian case law that has applied it. This is the article that makes the registration framework discussed in How to Register a Trademark in Nigeria: Parts A and B of the Register commercially meaningful: registration matters only because infringement law gives it teeth.

1. The Statutory Basis: Section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act

Section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004 is the provision that defines trademark infringement. It states that a trade mark shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, not being the proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user using it by way of permitted use, uses a mark identical with it or so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to any goods in respect of which it is registered.¹

Three elements must be established by the claimant for an infringement action to succeed. First, there must be use by a person who is not the proprietor of the registered trade mark or a registered user of it. Second, the mark being used must be identical with the registered mark or so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion. Third, the use must be in the course of trade in relation to goods or services in respect of which the mark is registered.²

A preliminary pre-condition sits before all three elements: the claimant’s trade mark must be registered. Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall be entitled to institute proceedings to prevent or recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark.³ An infringement action brought by a claimant without a valid registration certificate is incompetent. The certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks is itself a condition precedent to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, not merely an evidentiary matter.⁴ An acceptance or acknowledgment from the Registry that an application has been filed is not equivalent to a registration certificate; a certificate must actually have been issued.

2. First Element: Use by a Non-Proprietor

The first element is generally the most straightforward to establish, but it requires careful attention to two specific situations.

The prohibition is against use “by any person who not being the proprietor of the trade mark.”⁵ The Nigerian Court of Appeal in British American Tobacco (Nig.) Ltd and Anor v. International Tobacco Company Ltd confirmed that a trademark infringement arises where a person who is not the owner or a registered user makes use of a mark that is identical or closely resembling the registered mark in the course of trade.⁶ A registered user who uses the mark in accordance with the terms of their registered user agreement is expressly exempted from liability.

The question of what constitutes “use” has been interpreted broadly by Nigerian courts. Use includes applying the mark to goods or their packaging, offering goods for sale under the mark, importing or exporting goods under the mark, and using the mark in advertising, on business documents, or on the internet in relation to the relevant goods or services.⁷ The use does not need to be extensive or sustained: a single commercial use of the infringing mark in the course of trade is sufficient to establish the use element, though the scale of use is relevant to the assessment of damages.

The use must be in the course of trade. Private, non-commercial use of a mark does not infringe. A consumer who collects goods bearing a particular mark for personal pleasure does not infringe the mark merely by possessing them. What constitutes “trade” is interpreted by reference to the commercial context: any activity aimed at the sale, hire, distribution, or advertising of goods or services in the commercial marketplace constitutes use in the course of trade.⁸

3. Second Element: The Likelihood of Confusion Test

The likelihood of confusion is the central analytical engine of every Nigerian trademark infringement claim. Under section 5(2), the defendant’s mark must be “so nearly resembling” the registered mark “as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade.”⁹ The assessment of whether this standard is met is a matter for the court alone to decide, as the Supreme Court confirmed in CPL Industries Limited v. Morrison Industries Plc: in cases of infringement, the question whether one mark is likely to cause confusion is a matter which the court alone must determine, guided by the evidence.¹⁰

Nigerian courts have identified several factors relevant to this assessment, drawing on both domestic case law and the body of English decisions from which the TMA is derived.

The overall impression test. The comparison between the claimant’s mark and the defendant’s mark is not conducted by a side-by-side technical analysis of every element of each mark. The court considers the overall impression that each mark creates in the mind of an ordinary consumer of the relevant goods or services.¹¹ A consumer does not hold both marks side by side in the high street; they rely on an imperfect recollection of the mark they have seen before. The court therefore asks whether a person who has previously seen or encountered the claimant’s mark would, on encountering the defendant’s mark in the marketplace, be confused into thinking they were the same or connected.

Three dimensions of similarity. Nigerian courts and the course materials drawn from University of Ibadan’s LPP 406 curriculum identify three dimensions across which the similarity of marks is assessed: visual similarity, aural or phonetic similarity, and conceptual or idea similarity.¹² Each dimension can independently support a finding of confusing similarity, and a mark may be found to infringe even if it is not similar on all three dimensions simultaneously.

Visual similarity concerns the overall appearance of the two marks, including their shape, colour, composition, and any figurative or device elements. Aural similarity concerns how the marks sound when spoken aloud, which is particularly important in markets where goods are frequently described verbally in transactions, as is common in informal Nigerian commercial settings. Conceptual similarity concerns whether the two marks convey the same idea or meaning to consumers even if they look and sound different.

The importance of similarities over differences. A well-established principle in Nigerian trademark infringement cases is that it is not the differences between two marks that matter but their similarities.¹³ A defendant who argues that their mark differs from the plaintiff’s in several respects, while the overall impression created by both is substantially similar, has not defeated the confusion claim. The court looks at what is similar, not merely at what distinguishes the two marks when examined closely.

The strength of the plaintiff’s mark. Courts consider how widely known and recognised the plaintiff’s mark is among the relevant consuming public. A mark with strong brand recognition and extensive prior use in the Nigerian market creates a broader zone of protection, because consumers who encounter a similar mark are more likely to associate it with the well-known brand.¹⁴ A mark that is newly registered and not yet widely recognised affords narrower protection: a somewhat similar competitor mark is less likely to confuse consumers who have limited pre-existing association with the plaintiff’s brand.

The nature of the goods and their consumer market. The standard of attention expected of consumers varies with the nature of the goods and the circumstances in which they are purchased. Nigerian courts have applied a distinction between the careful, attentive purchaser of high-value items and the hurried, imperfect purchaser of everyday consumer goods. A consumer buying a pharmaceutical product in a hospital pharmacy is expected to exercise greater care than a consumer buying noodles or soft drinks in an open market. In the context of luxury goods, courts in comparable jurisdictions have recognised that the level of attention of these consumers is above average, reducing the likelihood of confusion even where marks are quite similar.¹⁵ The reverse applies to low-value staple goods sold rapidly in high-volume Nigerian markets: the relevant consumer standard is that of the ordinary, imperfect recollection buyer making a quick purchasing decision.

The defendant’s intention. While the defendant’s subjective intention to copy the plaintiff’s mark is not a strict element of infringement under section 5(2), courts have indicated that evidence of deliberate copying carries significant weight in the assessment of whether confusion was intended and likely.¹⁶ Where the evidence shows that the defendant deliberately chose a mark to exploit the plaintiff’s brand reputation, courts are more readily satisfied that the use was likely to cause confusion, on the reasoning that the defendant themselves evidently believed the marks were similar enough to benefit from the association.

4. The Catalogue of Confusing Marks: Nigerian Case Law in Practice

Nigerian courts have over the years built a substantial catalogue of mark comparisons that illustrate how the similarity assessment operates in practice. These cases from the course materials are directly examinable.

In United Kingdom Tobacco Co. Ltd v. Carreras Ltd (1931) 16 NLR 1, the mark “Bandmaster” for cigarettes featuring a picture of a white man in a bandmaster’s uniform was held to be so similar to “Barrister” cigarettes featuring a picture of a white man in a barrister’s robe as to be calculated to deceive or confuse consumers. The overall impression created by the combination of similar sounding name and comparable visual imagery was the decisive factor.¹⁷

In Re Marketing and Shipping Enterprises (1971) 2 NCLR 81, “Peacock Milk” was held to be confusingly similar to “Peak Milk.” The marks are phonetically similar at their opening consonants and share the word “milk,” while the visual presentation of both products in that era’s Nigerian market reinforced the likelihood of confusion among the ordinary consumer base.¹⁸

In Beecham Group Ltd v. Esdee Food Products Ltd (1985) NWLR 112, “Glucos-Aid” was held to be confusingly similar to “Lucozade.” The aural similarity between the names, both containing the syllable “luc” or “gluc” and both evoking the concept of glucose-based energy, was sufficient to establish likelihood of confusion among consumers of energy drinks.¹⁹

In G.B. Ollivant v. Coker (HK/145/61), “Pikin” was held to be confusingly similar to “Piccan.” The phonetic resemblance between the two coined marks, both short, two-syllable invented words with similar vowel sounds, was found to be confusing in the relevant market.²⁰

In Alban Pharmacy v. Sterling Products Inc. (1968) 1 All NLR 300, “Casorina” was held to be confusingly similar to “Castoria.” Again, the phonetic resemblance between the two marks, in a pharmaceutical product context where confused purchasing could have health consequences, was determinative.²¹

The consistent thread running through all of these cases is the primacy of the overall impression on the imperfectly recollecting consumer, assessed through the lens of visual, aural, and conceptual similarity taken together.

5. Third Element: Use in Relation to Registered Goods or Services

The third element of trademark infringement is that the defendant’s infringing use must be in relation to goods or services in respect of which the plaintiff’s mark is registered.²² This element reflects the class-specific nature of Nigerian trademark registration, discussed in How to Register a Trademark in Nigeria: Parts A and B of the Register: a mark registered in class 30 for coffee and tea products is infringed only by use of a similar mark in relation to goods in that class or closely related classes.

The “in relation to” language is broader than it might first appear. Use of an infringing mark on packaging, in advertisements, on websites, or on business documentation all qualify as use “in relation to” the goods, provided the goods themselves fall within the registered class. The infringing mark does not need to appear on the goods themselves; it is sufficient that the mark is used in a commercial context that connects it to goods of the relevant class.

A defendant who uses a similar mark in relation to entirely different goods, in an unrelated class with no overlap with the plaintiff’s registration, does not commit statutory trademark infringement under section 5(2). The plaintiff may still have a claim for passing off if they can show that the use amounts to a misrepresentation likely to cause damage to their business reputation, but the statutory infringement claim under the TMA will fail for want of the class connection.

The notable exception involves well-known marks. Where a mark is so widely recognised that its reputation extends beyond the specific goods or services for which it is registered, some courts have been willing to extend protection beyond the registered class to prevent misrepresentation by association. Nigerian courts have not yet developed a fully articulated anti-dilution doctrine equivalent to that found in more modern trademark statutes, and students should be cautious about asserting cross-class infringement under the TMA without identifying the specific statutory or judicial basis for it in a Nigerian context.

6. Defences to Trademark Infringement

Section 7 of the TMA provides the principal statutory defence to an infringement claim. No registration of a trademark prevents any person from making, in good faith, any of the following uses:

Use of a person’s own name or their place of business. A person who uses their own surname, or the name of their place of business, in the course of trade, even where that name coincides with a registered trade mark, is not liable for infringement provided the use is bona fide.²³ The bona fide requirement is critical: deliberate adoption of a name or address that is confusingly similar to a registered mark, for the purpose of trading on the mark’s reputation, falls outside the protection of the section 7 defence.

Bona fide description of the character or quality of goods. A person who uses a word or phrase that happens to coincide with a registered mark in a genuine, descriptive way, to indicate the character or quality of their goods, does not infringe.²⁴ The defence is narrow: the description must be genuinely descriptive and must not import a reference to the plaintiff’s mark or suggest a connection with the plaintiff’s goods.

Prior use. A person who has continuously used a mark in the course of trade from a date prior to the registration of the plaintiff’s mark, and who has not consented to the registration, may continue to use the mark within the territorial scope of their prior use.²⁵ This prior use defence is particularly relevant in the Nigerian market, where informal trading relationships and unregistered brand identities sometimes predate the formal registration of similar marks by larger competitors.

Invalidity of the registration. A defendant may challenge the validity of the plaintiff’s registration, arguing that it should not have been granted because the mark lacks distinctiveness, is deceptive, was registered by someone who was not the true proprietor, or because it infringes an earlier registered mark. A successful invalidity challenge defeats the infringement claim entirely, since an invalid registration confers no enforceable rights.²⁶

7. Counterfeiting: The Criminal Dimension

Trademark infringement in Nigeria operates on both civil and criminal planes. The criminal dimension is governed primarily by the Merchandise Marks Act Cap M10 LFN 2004, which creates specific offences for the fraudulent use of trademarks in connection with goods.

Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act makes it a criminal offence to forge a trademark, to falsely apply a registered trademark to goods, to sell or have in one’s possession goods bearing a forged or falsely applied trademark, or to make any die, block, machine, or instrument for the purpose of forging a trademark.²⁷ These offences specifically address counterfeiting conduct, defined broadly as the fraudulent imitation of a genuine trademark on goods, and they are prosecuted by the police or other law enforcement agencies rather than by private rights holders.

The Trade Malpractices (Miscellaneous Offences) Act Cap T12 LFN 2004 adds further criminal liability for mislabelling, false trade descriptions, and the fraudulent marketing of products, including products bearing false or misleading marks.²⁸ The Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap C34 LFN 2004 addresses counterfeit pharmaceuticals specifically, with enhanced penalties reflecting the public health dimension of pharmaceutical counterfeiting.

The criminal route is typically pursued where the infringement is large-scale, commercial, and clearly deliberate, particularly in the Alaba International market context where counterfeit goods are sold openly and systematically. Criminal prosecution offers the prospect of custodial sentences and fines as deterrents, but requires cooperation from prosecuting authorities and carries the heavier burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. For most brand owners, civil infringement proceedings remain the preferred route because they offer more direct control over the outcome and access to civil remedies including injunctions and damages.

8. The Consumer Protection Intersection

A genuinely underexplored dimension of Nigerian trademark infringement law is its relationship with consumer protection legislation. The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 (FCCPA) prohibits false or misleading representations about goods, which squarely covers the scenario where a consumer purchases a counterfeit product believing it to be genuine.²⁹ The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has concurrent jurisdiction to address consumer harm arising from deceptive commercial practices, including the sale of counterfeit goods.

This creates a dual enforcement environment: a brand owner whose mark is being infringed through counterfeiting can bring civil trademark infringement proceedings in the Federal High Court, while the FCCPC may separately investigate and penalise the counterfeit seller for misleading consumers in breach of the FCCPA. The two regimes address the same underlying conduct from different angles, one from the brand owner’s property interest perspective and the other from the consumer’s right to accurate information perspective.

The connection between trademark infringement and consumer harm also informs how courts assess the likelihood of confusion: where the goods involved are pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, or other products whose quality directly affects consumer health and safety, courts apply the confusion test with a heightened awareness of the real-world consequences of confusion, and are more readily satisfied that similarity creates an unacceptable risk of harm.

9. The Constitutional Dimension: Section 44 and the Scope of Trademark Rights

The exclusive right conferred by trademark registration is a property right protected under section 44 of the 1999 Constitution.³⁰ This characterisation has two practical consequences in the infringement context. First, it means that courts should take seriously the rights holder’s entitlement to the full commercial value of their mark, including through substantial awards of damages rather than nominal or token relief. Second, and in tension with the first, it means that the scope of trademark rights must be proportionate to the property interest they protect. Trademark law should not allow a rights holder to monopolise ordinary language, common descriptive terms, or geographical names to the extent that legitimate competitors and consumers are prevented from communicating accurately about their own goods. The bona fide use and descriptive use defences in section 7 are the TMA’s mechanism for ensuring that trademark protection remains proportionate and does not unduly restrict competition or expression.

Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which protects freedom of expression, is engaged in the specific context of comparative advertising and critical commentary that uses a registered mark to identify and compare products. A trader who advertises their own product by referring to a competitor’s registered mark for the purpose of honest comparison is using the registered mark in a commercial context. Whether this use falls within the infringement definition in section 5(2), or whether it is protected by the section 7 bona fide use defence or by section 39 itself, is an analytically open question in Nigerian law that has not been authoritatively resolved by a reported Nigerian decision on these specific facts.

10. Problem Question Framework

When a problem question raises trademark infringement, work through the following sequence.

Confirm the preliminary pre-conditions. Is the plaintiff’s mark registered? Is a valid registration certificate in evidence? Has the registration period lapsed without renewal, or has the mark been removed for non-use? If the mark is not registered, the statutory infringement action under section 5(2) is not available; redirect to passing off.

Establish element one: use by a non-proprietor. Is the defendant the registered proprietor or a registered user? If yes, there is no infringement. If the defendant is neither, establish what specific use was made of the mark and confirm it occurred in the course of trade.

Establish element two: the likelihood of confusion analysis. Compare the marks across all three dimensions: visual, aural, and conceptual. Apply the overall impression test, not a side-by-side technical comparison. Consider the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, the nature of the relevant consumers, and the nature of the goods. Remember that it is similarities, not differences, that the court focuses on. Apply the relevant Nigerian precedents from the case catalogue in section 4 above if the marks bear any resemblance to the fact patterns those cases address.

Establish element three: use in the registered class. Confirm that the defendant’s infringing use relates to goods or services within the class for which the plaintiff’s mark is registered.

Consider defences. Has the defendant used their own name bona fide? Have they made a genuine descriptive use? Do they have a prior use right? Have they raised a challenge to the validity of the plaintiff’s registration?

Identify whether the criminal route is also relevant. Where the facts suggest deliberate, commercial-scale counterfeiting, identify the Merchandise Marks Act and Trade Malpractices Act provisions in addition to the civil infringement analysis.

11. Common Student Mistakes

Failing to check whether the plaintiff’s mark is registered. A trademark infringement action under section 5(2) requires a registered mark. Students who proceed directly to the confusion analysis without first establishing registration have built their answer on a flawed foundation.

Conducting a side-by-side technical comparison of the marks. The correct test is the overall impression on an imperfectly recollecting consumer of ordinary intelligence. A student who lists every difference between two marks and concludes there is no confusion because they differ in colour, font, or number of syllables has applied the wrong test.

Focusing only on visual similarity. The court assesses visual, aural, and conceptual similarity. A student who examines only the appearance of the marks and ignores how they sound or what meaning they convey has conducted an incomplete analysis.

Treating the section 7 bona fide use defence as broad. The defence is narrow. It does not protect deliberate adoption of a competitor’s mark under the guise of using one’s own name or making a descriptive use. The bona fide requirement means the use must be genuinely motivated by the legitimate purpose the defence contemplates, not by a desire to trade on the plaintiff’s reputation.

Confusing trademark infringement with passing off. These are distinct causes of action with different requirements. Trademark infringement under section 5(2) requires a registered mark. Passing off requires reputation, misrepresentation, and damage, and is available for unregistered marks. A strong examination answer will identify which cause of action applies on the given facts, or advise on both where both are potentially available.

Ignoring the criminal dimension in counterfeiting scenarios. Where the facts describe deliberate production and sale of counterfeit goods at commercial scale, the Merchandise Marks Act criminal offences should be identified alongside the civil infringement analysis.

12. Quick Reference Table

13. Key Cases

CPL Industries Limited v. Morrison Industries Plc is the leading Nigerian authority on the principle that the question of whether one mark is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade is a matter for the court alone to decide, not a question to be resolved by the parties’ assessments. The court must apply the overall impression test objectively, guided by the evidence of the relevant consumer market, and cannot simply accept the plaintiff’s assertion that confusion is likely or the defendant’s assertion that it is not.

Beecham Group Ltd v. Esdee Food Products Ltd (1985) NWLR 112 is the seminal Nigerian case establishing that aural or phonetic similarity is itself sufficient to establish confusing similarity. The finding that “Glucos-Aid” was confusingly similar to “Lucozade” on the basis of their phonetic resemblance in the energy drinks market demonstrates that a defendant cannot avoid infringement liability by ensuring visual dissimilarity if the marks sound alike to the relevant consumer.

British American Tobacco (Nig.) Ltd and Anor v. International Tobacco Company Ltd (2003-2007) 5 IPLR 285 confirms the personal element of the first limb of infringement: only a person who is not the registered proprietor or a registered user can be an infringer. The case is the authority for the proposition that a licensee or registered user using the mark within their authorised scope commits no infringement, a point that is directly relevant to franchise and licensing arrangements in the Nigerian consumer goods market.

J. Chami v. P.Z. (1968) 2 ALR Comm 69 established, per Adefarasin J, that in an action on trademark infringement, the question whether the defendant’s mark is likely to deceive consumers is a question of fact which the judge alone must decide, guided by evidence. The judge must assess whether consumers could be deceived by the two marks in the actual marketplace, rather than in controlled comparison conditions.

Footnotes

¹ Section 5(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

² <cite index=”17-1″>World IP Review, ‘Nigeria: Bridging the gap between trademark and consumer protection’ (November 2025), setting out the three elements required under section 5(2) TMA for a trademark infringement claim to succeed.</cite>

³ Section 3, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁴ <cite index=”23-1″>Benchmac & Ince, ‘Enforcement of Trademark Rights in Nigeria’, noting that the existence of a registered trademark or certificate of trademark is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court, and that a mere acknowledgment of acceptance is not equivalent to a valid registration certificate.</cite>

⁵ Section 5(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁶ British American Tobacco (Nig.) Ltd and Anor v. International Tobacco Company Ltd (2003-2007) 5 IPLR 285.

⁷ <cite index=”16-1″>EBC Consults, ‘Trademark Infringement in Nigeria: How to Protect and Enforce Your Brand Rights’ (2026), describing the forms of use that constitute infringement.</cite>

⁸ Section 5(2) and section 67 (definition of “trade”), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁹ Section 5(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹⁰ CPL Industries Limited v. Morrison Industries Plc; IP II Slide, Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan (course materials).

¹¹ <cite index=”25-1″>Lexology, ‘Trademark Infringement: Analyzing the Concept of Confusingly Similar Trademarks’ (2022), explaining that Nigerian courts apply an overall impression test rather than a technical element-by-element comparison.</cite>

¹² IP II Slide (n 10), identifying visual, audible, and conceptual similarity as the three dimensions of the trademark confusion assessment.

¹³ IP II Slide (n 10): “It is not however the differences between two trademarks but it is their similarities which have to be taken into consideration.”

¹⁴ <cite index=”18-1″>Resolution Law, ‘Trademark Infringement and Enforcement of Trademark Rights in Nigeria’, listing the strength of the plaintiff’s mark as a factor the court considers.</cite>

¹⁵ <cite index=”25-1″>Lexology (n 11), noting that purchasers of luxury branded products are not to be regarded as average consumers, and that their level of attention is above average.</cite>

¹⁶ <cite index=”19-1″>Mondaq, ‘Trademark Infringement in Nigeria and Legal Remedies’ (November 2020), noting that courts consider the intention of the defendant and whether they were aware of the plaintiff’s mark before infringing.</cite>

¹⁷ United Kingdom Tobacco Co. Ltd v. Carreras Ltd (1931) 16 NLR 1; IP II Slide (n 10).

¹⁸ Re Marketing and Shipping Enterprises (1971) 2 NCLR 81; IP II Slide (n 10).

¹⁹ <cite index=”24-1″>Obidimma, Nwotite and Egwu, ‘Examining Trade Marks Infringement in Nigeria’ (Nigerian Journal of Legal Studies), citing Beecham Group v. Esdee Food Products for the proposition that “Glucos-Aid” is confusing in sound to “Lucozade” and would likely mislead the public.</cite>

²⁰ G.B. Ollivant v. Coker (HK/145/61); IP II Slide (n 10).

²¹ Alban Pharmacy v. Sterling Products Inc. (1968) 1 All NLR 300; IP II Slide (n 10).

²² Section 5(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²³ Section 7(a), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁴ Section 7(b), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁵ Section 7, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁶ <cite index=”12-1″>ICLG, ‘Trade Marks Laws and Regulations Report 2026: Nigeria’, listing grounds for revocation and invalidity of trademark registrations.</cite>

²⁷ Section 2, Merchandise Marks Act Cap M10 LFN 2004.

²⁸ Trade Malpractices (Miscellaneous Offences) Act Cap T12 LFN 2004.

²⁹ Section 119, Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018.

³⁰ Section 44(1), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.