Remedies for Trademark Infringement in Nigeria: Injunctions, Damages and Criminal Liability

A global consumer goods company discovers that a manufacturer in Aba is producing thousands of units of a soap bar using packaging that closely imitates its registered trademark, colour scheme, and brand name. The infringing goods are already moving through distribution channels toward retailers across the south-east. If the company waits for a full trial before seeking relief, the market damage will be done and largely irreversible. If it goes to court immediately, it can try to stop the infringement before most of the damage occurs. And if criminal prosecution is also available, it may be possible to deter future infringement in ways that civil damages alone cannot.

Understanding the full remedial toolkit for trademark infringement in Nigeria requires working through several different legal frameworks simultaneously: the Trade Marks Act itself, the equitable jurisdiction of the courts, the criminal statutes that govern counterfeiting, and the administrative enforcement powers of agencies including the Nigerian Customs Service, NAFDAC, and the FCCPC. It also requires understanding one of the more surprising features of Nigerian trademark law: the Trade Marks Act is largely silent on remedies other than damages, meaning that courts have had to fill the gap through equitable principles, with occasionally contested results.

1. The TMA’s Statutory Gap on Remedies

The starting point for understanding trademark remedies in Nigeria is a feature of the TMA that is rarely acknowledged in student resources but is analytically important. Unlike the Copyright Act 2022, which expressly lists the civil remedies available to a successful claimant, the Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004 does not contain a comprehensive remedies provision. The Act establishes the right of the registered proprietor under section 5(1), defines infringement in section 5(2), and in section 6 provides that the registered proprietor of a trade mark may institute a legal action for trademark infringement.¹ But the Act is largely silent on the specific remedies that flow from a successful infringement action.

This gap has been filled in two ways. First, Nigerian courts have relied on their equitable jurisdiction to award remedies such as injunctions, accounts of profits, and orders for delivery up and destruction of infringing goods, reasoning that these are equitable remedies that courts empowered to apply equitable principles may grant in intellectual property cases.² Second, courts have drawn on the general civil procedure framework and, by analogy, on the more explicit remedies provisions in other IP statutes such as the Copyright Act.

The AIJA Journal analysis of two Federal High Court decisions on trademark infringement remedies puts the point candidly: the TMA does not explicitly specify the remedies available to a prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement action beyond damages, and courts have justified the award of additional equitable remedies on the basis of the court’s general equitable powers.³ This reliance on equitable jurisdiction, while practically effective, creates some doctrinal uncertainty about the precise scope of what can be awarded and whether all the remedies Nigerian courts have actually given in trademark cases rest on secure analytical foundations.

2. The Pre-Action Remedy: Cease-and-Desist and Negotiated Settlement

Before formal litigation begins, the most commonly used enforcement step in Nigerian trademark practice is the cease-and-desist letter. A rights holder whose trademark is being infringed typically instructs solicitors to send a formal letter to the infringer identifying the registered mark, specifying the infringing conduct, and demanding immediate cessation and, where appropriate, compensation.⁴

A well-drafted cease-and-desist letter serves several practical purposes. It puts the infringer on notice, which is evidentially useful in later proceedings because it removes any argument of innocent infringement. It creates a formal record of the rights holder’s response to the infringement, which courts look at when assessing whether the rights holder has acted promptly. And it creates the opportunity for a negotiated settlement, which many straightforward trademark disputes are resolved through, without the cost and delay of Federal High Court proceedings.

Where the infringer does not respond, responds dismissively, or continues the infringing activity after receiving the letter, the rights holder moves to formal proceedings. The choice of which remedies to seek first depends critically on whether the priority is stopping the ongoing infringement immediately, recovering compensation for past infringement, or both.

3. Injunctions: The Most Important Remedy in Practice

Injunctions are, in most trademark infringement scenarios, the most commercially important remedy. A company whose trademark is being counterfeited at scale needs the infringement stopped, not merely compensated after the fact. The value of injunctive relief is precisely that it operates in real time rather than retrospectively.

Nigerian courts grant injunctions in trademark infringement cases in three forms.

Interlocutory injunctions are granted before trial and remain in force pending the final determination of the action. The test for an interlocutory injunction in Nigeria follows the well-established principles derived from the English case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC 396, as applied and adapted by Nigerian courts: the applicant must show a serious question to be tried on the merits, that the balance of convenience favours granting the restraint, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the injunction is refused but the applicant ultimately succeeds.⁵ In trademark infringement cases, the interlocutory injunction test is usually satisfied without difficulty where the mark is registered and the similarity between the marks is visible: the registered mark itself establishes the serious question, the risk of ongoing market harm to the rights holder’s brand outweighs the disruption to the infringer’s business, and the reputational damage from ongoing infringement is of a kind not easily compensated by damages alone.

In Gallaher Ltd and Anor v. British American Tobacco (Nig.) Ltd and Ors (2014) LPELR-24333 (CA), the Court of Appeal affirmed that a proprietor may seek injunctive relief to stop, on an urgent basis, the continuing violation of a registered trademark pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The decision confirms that interlocutory trademark injunctions are a standard and appropriate remedy in Nigerian trademark enforcement, and that courts should not require full proof of infringement before granting emergency relief where the evidence on its face shows an arguable case.

Anton Piller orders (also known as search and seizure orders or inspection orders) are the most powerful form of pre-trial interim relief available in Nigerian trademark enforcement. An Anton Piller order authorises the rights holder’s solicitors to enter the infringer’s premises without advance notice, inspect, photograph, and seize infringing goods, materials, documents, and equipment used in the infringement, before the infringer has the opportunity to destroy or conceal evidence.⁶ The order is granted without notice to the defendant, on the basis that giving notice would defeat its purpose. It is applied for on the basis of sworn affidavit evidence showing that there is a strong prima facie case of infringement, that the defendants have evidence in their possession that they may destroy if notified, and that the harm to the applicant from inaction outweighs the disruption to the defendant.

Anton Piller relief is particularly valuable in counterfeiting cases involving operations in markets like Alaba International or Computer Village, where infringing stock can be dispersed, transferred to associates, or destroyed with remarkable speed once the infringer is aware of litigation. The order gives rights holders the practical ability to secure evidence and seize infringing goods before they vanish. Any improper execution of an Anton Piller order, including excessive seizure or intimidation, exposes the rights holder to contempt proceedings, and courts have in several cases condemned over-zealous execution of search orders.

Perpetual injunctions are granted after the full trial when the court has found infringement. A perpetual injunction permanently restrains the infringer from using the infringing mark or any other mark confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark in the course of trade. It is the conclusive form of injunctive relief and, from the rights holder’s perspective, is the primary outcome sought in most trademark infringement actions that proceed to full trial.

4. Damages

A rights holder who proves trademark infringement is entitled to damages as compensation for the losses suffered as a result of the infringing activity.⁷ The purpose of damages in trademark infringement is compensatory: to restore the rights holder to the financial position they would have been in if the infringement had not occurred.

In practice, trademark damages in Nigeria are assessed under two heads. General damages reflect the loss of business, erosion of brand value, and disruption to the plaintiff’s commercial position caused by the infringement. These are assessed by the court on the basis of the overall circumstances of the infringement, without requiring precise proof of each unit of lost revenue. Special damages cover quantifiable, specific losses that the plaintiff can directly attribute to the infringement, such as provable lost sales volumes or identified lost contracts.

The courts have also recognised in appropriate cases the award of exemplary or punitive damages for trademark infringement, where the infringement was flagrant, deliberate, and calculated. Where a defendant who has received a cease-and-desist letter nonetheless continues infringing, or where there is evidence of deliberate large-scale counterfeiting intended to exploit the plaintiff’s brand, the court may add an element of punitive damages beyond the purely compensatory measure, to deter future infringement. The statutory basis for exemplary damages in trademark cases, as noted above, is the general equitable jurisdiction of the court rather than any express TMA provision.

5. Account of Profits and the Golden Guinea Controversy

In addition to or instead of damages, the court may order the infringer to account for and pay over to the plaintiff the profits made from the infringing activity. An account of profits strips the defendant of the financial benefit of the infringement, regardless of whether the rights holder suffered a corresponding loss. It is a restitutionary remedy grounded in equity.

The critical issue in Nigerian trademark law is whether damages and account of profits can be awarded simultaneously. In mainstream common law equity, they are alternative remedies: the plaintiff must elect one or the other, because simultaneously awarding damages (which compensate the plaintiff’s loss) and an account of profits (which disgorges the defendant’s gain) risks double recovery where there is overlap between the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s profit from the same infringing sales.

The Federal High Court in Golden Guinea Breweries Plc v. Midland Galss Nigeria Ltd awarded both general damages and an account of profits in respect of the same trademark infringement.⁸ The AIJA Journal analysis of this decision observed that the propriety of awarding both remedies simultaneously is questionable in light of the equitable principle against double recovery, while acknowledging that Nigerian courts have not yet authoritatively resolved whether the election principle applicable in English equity applies with the same rigidity in Nigerian trademark proceedings.⁹ Students who encounter a trademark infringement problem question should be aware of this live controversy: advise the client that they may elect to seek either damages or an account of profits, identify the strategic reasons for preferring one over the other on the facts given, and note that while the Golden Guinea decision awarded both, the analytical correctness of that approach is contested.

The strategic choice between damages and account of profits follows the same logic as in copyright infringement: where the infringer has earned more from the infringing activity than the rights holder has demonstrably lost, an account of profits may yield a larger recovery. Where the rights holder has suffered serious market damage that exceeds the infringer’s discernible profit, damages is the preferred election. Full financial disclosure from the defendant before electing is the sensible practical step.

6. Delivery Up and Destruction

The court may order that infringing goods, and the means used to produce them such as counterfeit packaging materials, printing plates, and moulds, be delivered up to the plaintiff and destroyed.¹⁰ This remedy is not limited to removing infringing products from the market; it extends to the entire physical infrastructure of the counterfeiting operation, removing the infringer’s capacity to continue producing infringing goods even after the court proceedings have concluded.

In counterfeiting cases at Alaba International Market or in the informal manufacturing districts of Aba, delivery up and destruction orders are often the most practically important relief sought alongside the injunction: stopping the infringement and ensuring that the infringer cannot immediately resume with existing stock and equipment.

7. Declaration of Rights

A court may grant a declaration that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark in question, that the trademark is valid, and that the defendant’s conduct constitutes an infringement of that trademark.¹¹ A declaration is particularly useful as an ancillary remedy in cases where there is a dispute about the validity of the registration itself, since the declaration operates as a definitive judicial pronouncement binding on the parties about the legal status of the mark.

8. Criminal Liability: Three Separate Statutes

Nigerian trademark enforcement on the criminal side operates across three distinct statutes, each covering a different dimension of counterfeiting and trademark misuse.

The Merchandise Marks Act Cap M10 LFN 2004 is the primary criminal statute for trademark counterfeiting. Section 2 of the Act makes it an offence to forge a trademark, to falsely apply a registered trademark to goods, to sell or expose for sale goods bearing a forged or falsely applied trademark knowing them to be forged, or to make any die, block, machine, or instrument for the purpose of forging a trademark.¹² The mens rea element, the requirement of knowledge, is significant for criminal liability under this Act: a market trader who genuinely did not know the goods they were selling bore a forged mark is not caught by section 2, though once put on notice they acquire the knowledge element for future transactions.

Criminal sanctions under the Merchandise Marks Act include fines and custodial sentences. The Act also empowers law enforcement agencies to seize goods bearing forged or falsely applied trademarks and the instruments used to produce them. The criminal route is typically pursued by the Nigerian Police Force and the FCCPC rather than directly by the rights holder, who does not control the prosecutorial decision.

The Trade Malpractices (Miscellaneous Offences) Act Cap T12 LFN 2004 addresses mislabelling, false trade descriptions, and the fraudulent marketing of products bearing false or misleading marks, including products that imitate the packaging or presentation of genuine goods without directly forging the trademark itself. This statute reaches conduct that falls short of outright trademark forgery but nonetheless causes consumer confusion through deceptive presentation.¹³

The Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap C34 LFN 2004 applies specifically to counterfeit pharmaceutical products and adulterated food, categories where trademark counterfeiting has a direct public health dimension. NAFDAC has extensive powers under this statute to seize, test, and destroy counterfeit pharmaceutical goods bearing the marks of genuine manufacturers, to prosecute the producers and distributors of counterfeit drugs, and to publicise the results of enforcement actions.¹⁴

The criminal route for trademark enforcement has been supplemented by the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention) Act 2015 in the specific context of online trademark infringement: using a registered trademark without authorisation in the course of electronic commerce or online business activity may engage the cybercrime provisions alongside the civil trademark infringement remedy.¹⁵

9. Administrative Enforcement: Customs, NAFDAC, and the FCCPC

Beyond the courts and criminal prosecution, several administrative agencies have enforcement powers relevant to trademark protection that rights holders can engage directly without initiating litigation.

Nigerian Customs Service. A registered trademark owner may lodge a notice with the Nigerian Customs Service identifying their registered mark and requesting that the Service treat as prohibited imports any goods that bear infringing copies of the mark.¹⁶ The Service then has authority to detain and seize infringing goods at the point of entry into Nigeria. This border enforcement mechanism is particularly valuable for rights holders whose products are being counterfeited abroad and the infringing goods are being imported rather than manufactured domestically. The notice must identify the mark, the goods in respect of which protection is sought, and sufficient information to assist Customs officers to identify infringing goods.

NAFDAC. The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control has specific powers to regulate and enforce standards for food, drugs, cosmetics, and related products. Where a counterfeiting operation targets pharmaceutical or food brands, NAFDAC enforcement, including market raids, product testing, and seizure of substandard or adulterated goods, is often the most effective immediate response because NAFDAC has field presence and enforcement capability across Nigeria and can act without waiting for court proceedings.¹⁷

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. Under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, the FCCPC has jurisdiction over false or misleading representations about goods, which covers the scenario where counterfeit goods are sold to consumers under the false impression that they are genuine.¹⁸ A rights holder can report trademark counterfeiting to the FCCPC as a consumer protection matter, triggering the Commission’s investigative and enforcement powers in parallel with civil litigation. The FCCPC can impose administrative fines and order redress, providing a faster and lower-cost enforcement mechanism than full civil proceedings in appropriate cases.

10. The Limitation Period

One practical matter that examination answers and commercial advices frequently omit is the limitation period for trademark infringement actions. A civil action for trademark infringement is subject to a six-year limitation period under the Limitations Act 1966, running from the date on which the infringing act occurred.¹⁹ A rights holder who discovers infringement that has been ongoing for several years must act within six years of any specific infringing act they wish to claim compensation for. Rights holders who delay enforcement risk losing the ability to recover damages for the earliest infringing acts, even if they can still obtain injunctions and future-looking relief.

For continuing infringements, such as a competitor who has been using an infringing mark for ten years, each individual infringing act within the limitation period is actionable, and the six-year window gives the rights holder a substantial damages window while the ongoing nature of the infringement justifies injunctive relief to stop future acts. For discrete past infringements that have already ceased, the limitation period runs strictly from the date of each act.

11. The Constitutional Dimension: Property Rights and Proportionality

The remedies framework for trademark infringement is the mechanism through which the constitutional property protection in section 44 of the 1999 Constitution is given practical effect. A registered trademark is movable property; its infringement is an encroachment on a constitutionally protected property interest. Courts that award substantial injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits in trademark cases are giving effect to this constitutional characterisation by treating trademark rights as deserving the same quality of remedial protection as any other property right.

The proportionality dimension of section 44 is also relevant in the context of Anton Piller orders and delivery up orders. Both involve significant disruption to the defendant’s business, and courts have been careful to ensure that the relief granted is proportionate to the harm caused by the infringement. An over-broad Anton Piller order that seizes legitimate business assets alongside infringing goods, or a delivery up order that extends to goods that turn out to have been legitimately manufactured, raises constitutional property rights concerns for the defendant alongside the statutory trademark analysis.

Section 39 of the Constitution, which protects commercial expression, intersects with trademark remedies specifically in the context of injunctions against comparative advertising. Where a defendant argues that their use of a similar mark constituted protected comparative advertising rather than infringing use, the court balancing the grant of an interlocutory injunction must weigh the rights holder’s statutory property interest against the defendant’s constitutionally protected freedom of commercial expression, and the result is not always straightforward.

12. Problem Question Framework

When a problem question asks you to advise on remedies for trademark infringement, work through this sequence.

Confirm jurisdiction and standing. Proceedings must be in the Federal High Court. The claimant must be the registered proprietor, an assignee, or a registered user. Establish that a valid registration certificate has been issued.

Assess the urgency. Is the infringement ongoing? If yes, an interlocutory injunction is likely the first priority. Apply the American Cyanamid test: is there a serious question to be tried, does balance of convenience favour the grant, and are damages inadequate? In counterfeiting scenarios, the reputational harm and market damage from delay make damages inadequate as the sole remedy in virtually every case.

Where there is a risk of evidence destruction, advise on an Anton Piller order. Identify the elements: strong prima facie case, evidence in defendant’s possession, real risk of destruction if notified, and the grant being proportionate.

Identify the appropriate financial remedy. Advise on the damages/account of profits choice, informed by what financial evidence is available or can be compelled from the defendant. Flag the Golden Guinea controversy: while courts have awarded both, the analytical correctness of simultaneous award is contested, and the safer approach is to elect one remedy.

Add delivery up and destruction where the facts disclose infringing goods in the defendant’s possession. Identify both the goods and the means of production where applicable.

Identify criminal enforcement options. Is the infringement at a commercial scale, and does it involve deliberate forgery of the trademark under the Merchandise Marks Act? Are counterfeit pharmaceutical or food products involved, triggering NAFDAC enforcement? Is FCCPC involvement appropriate for the consumer protection dimension?

Flag the limitation period. Alert the client to the six-year window for claiming damages for past infringement.

13. Common Student Mistakes

Treating the TMA as containing an explicit remedies provision equivalent to the Copyright Act. It does not. The remedies for trademark infringement in Nigeria beyond basic damages rest on the court’s equitable jurisdiction, and this has produced some doctrinal uncertainty in the case law. An answer that cites a specific TMA provision for injunctions or account of profits has over-stated the statutory foundation.

Awarding both damages and account of profits without flagging the controversy. The Golden Guinea decision did this, but the AIJA Journal analysis identifies it as questionable. A student who awards both without acknowledging the election principle and the controversy has produced an answer that is analytically imprecise.

Ignoring the Anton Piller order as a remedy. Students often list injunction, damages, and delivery up but omit the most practically powerful pre-trial enforcement tool available in counterfeiting cases. In any fact pattern involving large-scale production or distribution of infringing goods, the Anton Piller order should be identified.

Failing to engage the criminal enforcement dimension. Trademark infringement in Nigeria can simultaneously give rise to civil remedies in the Federal High Court and criminal prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act. A comprehensive advice that covers only the civil route is incomplete where the facts disclose deliberate commercial counterfeiting.

Ignoring the limitation period. Six years from the date of each infringing act. Where the infringement has been ongoing for several years before the rights holder took action, the limitation period determines how far back in time the damages claim extends.

Assuming the rights holder controls the criminal prosecution. The criminal process is initiated by the Nigerian Police Force, NAFDAC, the FCCPC, or other prosecuting authority, not by the private rights holder. The rights holder can report and cooperate, but cannot compel a prosecution or control its outcome. Civil and criminal proceedings are therefore parallel but separate tracks.

14. Quick Reference Table

15. Key Cases

Gallaher Ltd and Anor v. British American Tobacco (Nig.) Ltd and Ors (2014) LPELR-24333 (CA) confirmed that a registered trademark proprietor may seek interlocutory injunctive relief to stop, on an urgent basis, the continuing violation of their registered trademark pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The Court of Appeal’s affirmation of this principle establishes interlocutory injunctions as a standard and appropriate remedy in Nigerian trademark enforcement without requiring full proof of infringement before emergency relief is granted.

Golden Guinea Breweries Plc v. Midland Glass Nigeria Ltd is the Federal High Court decision that awarded both general damages and an account of profits in the same trademark infringement action. The AIJA Journal has identified this as a doctrinal anomaly, since the equitable principle that damages and account of profits are alternative rather than cumulative remedies was not applied in the decision. The case illustrates both the scope of relief that Nigerian courts have in practice awarded in trademark infringement cases and the analytical uncertainty that results from the TMA’s silence on its remedies framework.

J.T. Federal Electric Industries v. Sonnet Nigeria is the Nigerian decision in which an injunction was granted in a trademark infringement case, restraining the defendant from trading in a name and get-up identical or similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark. The case demonstrates the court’s willingness to use injunctive relief as the primary operative remedy in trademark infringement, consistent with the importance of stopping ongoing harm to the rights holder’s brand.

Footnotes

¹ Sections 5 and 6, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

² AIJA Journal, ‘Remedies for Trademark Infringement in Nigeria: Lessons from Two Decisions of the Federal High Court’, explaining that the TMA does not explicitly specify remedies other than damages and that courts have relied on equitable jurisdiction to award injunctions, account of profits, and delivery up.

³ Ibid.

⁴ EBC Consults, ‘Trademark Infringement in Nigeria: How to Protect and Enforce Your Brand Rights’ (2026), describing cease and desist notification as the first enforcement step available to trademark owners in Nigeria.

⁵ American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC 396; Benchmac & Ince, ‘Enforcement of Trademark Rights in Nigeria’ (2019), applying the American Cyanamid test to Nigerian trademark interlocutory injunction applications.

⁶ Benchmac & Ince (n 5), describing Anton Piller orders as deployed when the infringer has incriminating material and there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before a discovery process can be activated.

⁷ Goldsmiths LLP, ‘Trademarks in Nigeria: Registration, Infringement and Enforcement’ (December 2025), confirming that a brand owner who succeeds in an action is entitled to damages supported by evidence showing a direct causal relationship between the infringement and actual harm.

⁸ Golden Guinea Breweries Plc v Midland Glass Nigeria Ltd; AIJA Journal (n 2), discussing this case and noting that the FHC awarded damages and account of profits simultaneously.

⁹ AIJA Journal (n 2), stating that the propriety of the FHC’s award of damages and account for profit at the same time is questionable, and that Nigerian courts are empowered to apply equitable principles in resolving cases but should exercise caution.

¹⁰ ICLG, ‘Trade Marks Laws and Regulations Report 2026: Nigeria’, listing delivery up of infringing products as a remedy for trademark infringement.

¹¹ Overview of the Law for Protection of Trademarks in Nigeria (COOU journal), listing declaration of rights among the final remedies available after full hearing of evidence in trademark infringement actions.

¹² Section 2, Merchandise Marks Act Cap M10 LFN 2004.

¹³ Trade Malpractices (Miscellaneous Offences) Act Cap T12 LFN 2004.

¹⁴ Counterfeit and Fake Drugs and Unwholesome Processed Foods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap C34 LFN 2004.

¹⁵ Legal 500, ‘Trademark Law in Nigeria: A Guide to Registration, Infringement and Enforcement’ (January 2025), listing the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention) Act 2015 as part of the Nigerian trademark enforcement statutory framework.

¹⁶ Legal 500 (n 15), confirming that trademark owners may lodge notices with the Nigerian Customs Service to treat infringing imports as prohibited goods.

¹⁷ Counterfeit and Fake Drugs Act (n 14); NAFDAC enabling legislation.

¹⁸ Section 119, Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018.

¹⁹ EBC Consults (n 4), stating that trademark owners have six years from the date of infringement to bring a civil claim under the Limitations Act 1966.