How to Register a Trademark in Nigeria: Parts A and B of the Register

Imagine you have spent three years building a small pepper sauce brand in Port Harcourt. Your distinctive label, your invented brand name, and the loyal customer base you have cultivated across the Niger Delta represent real commercial value. One morning you discover that a Lagos distributor has started selling a very similar product under a nearly identical name, and is already advertising it to retailers. You want to sue. Then your lawyer asks the single most important procedural question in Nigerian trademark law: is your mark registered?

If the answer is no, section 3 of the Trade Marks Act immediately closes the door on every statutory infringement remedy. You are left with passing off, which has its own demanding requirements and which is far harder to prove in the absence of extensive reputation evidence. If the answer is yes, and your registration is in the right part of the register covering the right class of goods, you have a statutory monopoly that the courts will enforce.

Registration is not bureaucratic formality. It is the mechanism that converts commercial reputation into legally enforceable property. This article explains what makes a mark registrable in Nigeria, how the register’s two-part structure operates, what the application procedure involves in practice, and how long protection lasts.

1. The Two-Part Register: Parts A and B

The Trade Marks Act 1965 divides the Register of Trade Marks into two parts, with different standards of distinctiveness required for registration in each.¹ The distinction is not merely administrative. It has important consequences for the strength of the protection registration confers and for how difficult it is to challenge a registration.

Part A carries the higher distinctiveness standard. Under section 9(1) of the TMA, a mark is registrable in Part A if it contains or consists of at least one of the following: the name of a company, individual, or firm represented in a special or particular manner; the applicant’s signature or that of a predecessor in business; an invented word or words; a word or words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods and not being, in its ordinary signification, a geographical name or a surname; or any other distinctive mark.² The final category, “any other distinctive mark,” is a residual category for marks that do not fall into the preceding four but are nonetheless sufficiently distinctive to merit Part A protection.

Section 9(2) defines “distinctive” for Part A purposes as adapted, in relation to the goods or services for which the mark is registered or proposed to be registered, to distinguish goods or services with which the proprietor is or may be connected in the course of trade from goods or services in the case of which no such connection subsists.³ In determining whether a mark meets this standard, the tribunal may consider both whether the mark is inherently distinctive, that is, adapted to distinguish without prior use, and whether it has in fact become adapted to distinguish through prior use.⁴

The practical significance of Part A registration is the incontestability provision in section 14. A trademark registered in Part A shall, after the expiration of seven years from the date of registration, be taken to be valid in all respects, unless it can be established that the original registration was obtained by fraud, or that the mark is deceptive, scandalous, contrary to law, or contrary to public morality.⁵ After seven years in Part A, the mark becomes almost unchallengeable: a competitor who wants to attack the registration must find fraud or one of the limited stated grounds, and the ordinary argument that the mark was not sufficiently distinctive at the date of registration becomes unavailable.

Part B carries a lower standard. Section 10(1) provides that a mark that is not sufficiently distinctive to qualify for Part A registration may nonetheless be registered in Part B if it is capable, in relation to the goods or services for which it is proposed to be registered, of distinguishing goods or services with which the proprietor is or may be connected in the course of trade from goods or services in the case of which no such connection subsists.⁶ The tribunal in determining this considers whether the mark is inherently capable of distinguishing, and whether by reason of use or other circumstances it is in fact capable of distinguishing.⁷ A mark that is not yet distinctive but is capable of becoming distinctive through prolonged use can be registered in Part B.

The practical difference is that Part B registration does not confer the seven-year incontestability benefit that Part A provides. A Part B registration remains vulnerable to challenge on distinctiveness grounds throughout its life, and in infringement proceedings a court has a wider discretion to decline to grant an injunction against a defendant who uses a mark similar to a Part B mark if they can satisfy the court that there is no likelihood of deception or confusion.⁸

2. The Spectrum of Distinctiveness: A Framework for Analysis

Understanding which marks fall into Part A and which fall into Part B requires understanding how courts and the Registrar assess distinctiveness along a spectrum. The academic and judicial tradition, developed from UK case law that Nigerian courts follow, identifies five broad categories.

Fanciful or invented marks sit at the most distinctive end. These are words or symbols with no prior meaning in any language, entirely coined by the applicant for the purpose of functioning as a trademark. Examples include “Indomie” for noodles, “Exxon” for petroleum products, and “Omo” as originally conceived. These marks are inherently distinctive because they have no descriptive connection to any product and consumers can only associate them with one source. They qualify straightforwardly for Part A without any need to prove acquired distinctiveness through use.

Arbitrary marks are real, existing words applied to goods or services with which they have no logical or descriptive connection. “Apple” for computers and smartphones, “Penguin” for books, “Shell” for petroleum, and “Key” for a bank are arbitrary: they are ordinary words in English but bear no descriptive relationship to the goods they identify. Like fanciful marks, arbitrary marks are inherently distinctive and qualify for Part A.

Suggestive marks require some degree of imagination, thought, or perception to connect the mark to the goods or services. They suggest a quality or characteristic of the product without directly describing it. “Speedy Consult” for a law firm, “Freshco” for a beverage, and “Glitter” for a cleaning product fall into this category. Suggestive marks are generally eligible for Part A registration, though the boundary between suggestive and descriptive is often contested before the Registrar.

Descriptive marks directly describe a quality, characteristic, ingredient, function, or geographic origin of the goods or services. A mark that simply says “Fresh” for beverages, “Gold” for jewellery, or “Cold” for ice cream is descriptive. Descriptive marks cannot be registered in Part A without proof of acquired distinctiveness, meaning evidence that through prior use the mark has become associated in the minds of consumers specifically with the applicant’s goods, so that the word has acquired a secondary meaning identifying the source rather than merely describing the product. Without such proof, a descriptive mark may at best qualify for Part B as a mark capable of distinguishing through future use.

Generic marks are at the least distinctive end and are not registrable at all. A generic mark is one that consumers use to identify a general category of goods rather than a particular source. “Bread” for bread, “Detergent” for cleaning products, and “Car” for automobiles cannot be registered. Notably, marks that were once distinctive can become generic through widespread use in common language, a process called genericide. Aspirin, Biro, and Escalator were once registered trademarks that became generic through common usage. In the Nigerian context, “Indomie” used colloquially to mean any instant noodle regardless of brand illustrates the risk of genericide, though the mark remains registered and protected because its owner has actively policed against generic use.⁹

3. Non-Registrable Marks: Sections 11, 12, and 13

Even a mark that passes the distinctiveness test may not be registered if it falls within one of the statutory exclusions.

Section 11 excludes from registration marks whose use would by reason of their being likely to deceive or cause confusion, or would be contrary to law or morality, or would be scandalous, be disentitled to protection in a court of law.¹⁰ It also excludes marks containing any matter that would be likely to offend the religious susceptibilities of any class of persons in Nigeria. The prohibition extends to marks containing the words “patent,” “patented,” “registered,” “registered design,” “copyright,” “red cross,” or “Geneva cross,” or representations thereof, and to marks containing the name, coat of arms, flag, or other emblem of Nigeria, any Nigerian state, or any municipality.¹¹

The deceptive and scandalous exclusion has been applied by Nigerian courts to marks that misrepresent the character, quality, or origin of the goods. A mark that implies a pharmaceutical product has properties it does not have, or that suggests a connection with a government agency that does not exist, falls within the deceptive exclusion. The scandalous exclusion has not been extensively litigated in Nigeria but would cover marks that are offensive to public sensibility on grounds of obscenity or gross impropriety.

Section 12 excludes the registration of marks that are or include the name of a chemical substance, whether or not accompanied by other matter, where the substance is used for a specific purpose in the pharmaceutical or chemical trade.¹² In Smithkline Beecham Plc v. Farmex Ltd, discussed in Trademarks in Nigeria: Definition, Nature and Functions Under the Trade Marks Act, the court applied this principle in holding that “Milk of Magnesia” was a generic pharmaceutical name that could not be exclusively registered, since it described a well-known compound used freely across the medical and pharmaceutical world regardless of brand.

Section 13 is the most commercially significant exclusion for businesses planning to register marks in an occupied field. It provides that a mark that is identical to a registered trademark of another proprietor in respect of the same or similar goods or services, or that so nearly resembles a registered trademark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade, shall not be registered.¹³ The question of whether two marks are so similar as to be likely to cause confusion is one the court must decide, guided by the overall impression on the average consumer, as established in CPL Industries Limited v. Morrison Industries Plc.¹⁴

4. The Application Procedure: Step by Step

The procedure for trademark registration under the TMA is governed by sections 17 to 22 and the Trade Marks Regulations 1967. In practice, registration from filing to issuance of a certificate takes between twelve and eighteen months where there are no oppositions.¹⁵

Step one: trademark search. Before filing, a thorough search of the Register is strongly advisable, though not mandatory. The search checks whether any identical or confusingly similar mark is already registered in the relevant class. A clean search result does not guarantee registration, since the Registrar conducts their own examination, but it reduces the risk of filing fees and professional costs on an application that will face a prior-mark objection. The Registrar can be requested to conduct a formal search under section 17(2), though this carries a fee and the result is advisory rather than binding.¹⁶

Step two: preliminary advice on distinctiveness. Section 17(1) allows a prospective applicant to request the Registrar’s preliminary advice on whether the proposed mark appears to be inherently adapted to distinguish. If the Registrar advises that the mark appears not to be adapted to distinguish and the applicant proceeds with a formal application, the Registrar is not bound by the earlier advice.¹⁷ If the Registrar later objects on distinctiveness grounds despite having given positive preliminary advice, the applicant may withdraw the application within a prescribed period and recover the filing fee.

Step three: filing the application. An application for registration is made to the Registrar in writing using the prescribed form, under section 18(1) of the Act.¹⁸ The application must specify: the name, address, and nationality of the applicant; a clear representation of the mark; the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought; the class or classes under the Nice Classification; and, where the mark has been used prior to filing, evidence of such use. An agent holding a Power of Attorney may file on behalf of the applicant. The official filing fee is currently USD 80 per class, subject to upward or downward review by the Registry.¹⁹ The filing date is critical: trademark registration in Nigeria takes effect retrospectively from the date of the original application, meaning that any infringement occurring after the filing date is actionable even though the registration itself may not be issued until months later.²⁰

Step four: examination. The Registrar examines the application to determine whether it meets the formal requirements and whether the mark is registrable under sections 9 to 13. The Registrar may accept, accept with conditions or amendments, or refuse the application. Where the Registrar objects, the applicant is entitled to be heard and to make representations in response to the objection. If the Registrar ultimately decides to refuse registration, the applicant may appeal to the Federal High Court.²¹

Step five: publication in the Trade Marks Journal. Where the Registrar is satisfied with the application, it is advertised in the official Trade Marks Journal.²² Publication serves notice to the world that registration is being sought, triggering the opposition period.

Step six: opposition period. Any person may, within two months of the publication of a trademark application, give notice to the Registrar of opposition to the registration.²³ The notice must state the grounds of opposition. Common grounds include: the mark is confusingly similar to the opponent’s existing registered or well-known mark; the applicant is not the true proprietor of the mark; the mark is deceptive, scandalous, or contrary to law; or the mark contains a geographical name used in its ordinary descriptive sense. Opposition proceedings before the Registrar are quasi-judicial, with the parties filing evidence and, where required, attending hearings before the Registrar makes a decision. Appeal lies from the Registrar’s decision to the Federal High Court.²⁴

Step seven: registration. Where no opposition is filed or any opposition is disposed of in favour of the applicant, the Registrar proceeds to register the mark.²⁵ A certificate of registration is issued. The registration takes effect from the date of the original application.

5. Duration, Renewal, and the Consequences of Non-Use

Section 23 of the TMA provides that the initial period of registration is seven years from the date of the application.²⁶ After the initial seven-year period, the registration may be renewed for successive periods of fourteen years each, on payment of the prescribed renewal fee. An application for renewal should be made not less than three months before the due date.²⁷ The Registrar must send a notice of impending expiry in the prescribed manner. If the registration expires without renewal, the mark may be removed from the Register.

The seven-year initial period interacts with the incontestability provision in section 14 in a way students often find confusing. The registration becomes conclusively valid under section 14 after seven years from the date of registration. This means that at the moment of first renewal, the mark transitions from a challengeable registration to an effectively incontestable one, subject only to the narrow fraud and morality grounds. From that point, renewal every fourteen years becomes the principal obligation to maintain protection.

Non-use is a separate ground for removal from the Register, independent of the renewal question. Under section 31(2) of the TMA, a mark may be removed from the Register if it has not been used in bona fide trading in Nigeria for a continuous period of five years prior to an application for removal by an interested party.²⁸ The question of what constitutes “bona fide use” has been litigated with significant consequences for large brand portfolios. In The Procter and Gamble Ltd v. Global Soap and Detergent Industries Ltd, the registered mark “Flash” in respect of soap and detergent was ordered to be expunged from the Register. Procter and Gamble had registered the mark in 1960 but produced evidence of use only for a three-month period between April and June 1988. The court held, emphatically, that three months of use after more than twenty years of dormancy was not bona fide use capable of defeating an application for removal.²⁹ The case is a direct warning to brand owners who register marks in Nigeria as a defensive measure without maintaining actual trading activity under those marks.

The non-use removal mechanism has an important practical consequence in the Nigerian market: it creates opportunities for competitors to challenge and remove dormant registrations that might otherwise block new entrants from using desirable marks in particular product categories. A Nigerian entrepreneur who finds a valuable mark already registered but unused for several years has a statutory route to clear the Register.

6. Effects of Registration: What the Certificate Actually Gives You

Section 5 of the TMA provides that a person registered as the proprietor of a trade mark shall have the exclusive right to the use of the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the Register.³⁰ This exclusive right is the commercial foundation of the entire registration exercise. It gives the registered proprietor the right to sue for infringement if any person uses the mark, or any mark so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion, in the course of trade in relation to the same or similar goods or services.

The effect of Part A registration after seven years, the incontestability provision under section 14, has already been discussed. For Part B registration, section 10(5) gives the court discretion in infringement proceedings to decline to grant an injunction against a defendant who has used a mark similar to the plaintiff’s Part B registration, where the court is satisfied that the use would not mislead the public.³¹ This discretion does not exist in relation to Part A infringement claims, making Part A the strategically superior registration in every case where it is available.

Registration as a proprietor also gives the right to grant licences under section 34, and to assign the mark under section 26, both subject to formalities discussed in Trademark Licensing and Assignment in Nigeria. A registered mark may also be used as security for a loan, which is consistent with the treatment of IP as movable property noted in Assignment and Licensing of Copyright in Nigeria.

7. The Certification Mark and the Collective Mark Gap

The TMA recognises certification marks, which are marks used not to identify the commercial origin of goods but to certify that goods or services meet specified standards of quality, material, mode of manufacture, accuracy, or other characteristics, and that the proprietor of the mark does not itself trade in the certified goods or services.³² Certification marks have practical relevance in Nigeria for agricultural products, handicrafts, and regional speciality goods whose quality attributes Nigerian producers wish to signal credibly to buyers.

The TMA is, however, silent on collective marks, which are marks used by members of an association to indicate membership.³³ This gap is relevant to Nigerian trade and craft associations, professional bodies, and cooperative movements that might wish to use a collective mark to identify their members’ goods and services collectively. The absence of a statutory framework means that collective associations currently have no clear path to register a collective mark under Nigerian law, and must rely instead on ordinary registration in the name of the association as proprietor, which does not perfectly replicate the collective mark function.

8. The Constitutional Dimension: Registration and Equal Access

Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, which protects against discrimination on grounds including circumstance of birth, ethnicity, sex, and origin, has a subtle intersection with trademark registration practice that is rarely articulated but is worth examining.

The formal trademark registration system is financially and procedurally accessible to well-resourced corporations and large businesses, who can afford the professional fees involved in comprehensive trademark searches, multi-class applications, and opposition proceedings. Small and medium-sized enterprises, artisan producers, and individual Nigerian entrepreneurs operating in the informal economy, which employs the majority of Nigeria’s working population, face barriers of cost, information, and geographic access to the Abuja-based Trademarks Registry that can effectively exclude them from the formal protection system. This structural inaccessibility does not violate section 42 in any straightforward legal sense, since the Constitution does not guarantee equal access to IP registration as a directly enforceable right. But it raises a policy dimension that connects section 42’s anti-discrimination values to the design of IP institutions. A trademark system that, in practice, benefits only those with resources to navigate it concentrates the commercial advantages of trademark protection in the hands of the already-advantaged and leaves informal-sector producers, who may invest equally in their brand reputations, without equivalent protection.

This constitutional dimension is also relevant to the treatment of local Nigerian brands versus multinational brands in the registration system. A multinational corporation with global resources registers marks across all relevant classes, conducts thorough clearance searches, and monitors for infringement systematically. A local brand building genuine goodwill in a specific regional market may have no registered trademark at all, and finds that the formal enforcement route available to the multinational, a Federal High Court infringement action, is practically inaccessible. The passing off action discussed in Passing Off in Nigeria: The Unregistered Mark’s Protection and the Jurisdiction Controversy is the primary recourse for unregistered mark owners, but it too requires substantial proof of reputation and is expensive to litigate.

9. Problem Question Framework

When a problem question requires you to advise on registrability and the registration process, work through this sequence.

Step one: assess whether the mark meets the distinctiveness standard. Place the mark on the fanciful-arbitrary-suggestive-descriptive-generic spectrum. Is it inherently distinctive enough for Part A under section 9? Or is it capable of distinguishing but not inherently distinctive, making Part B under section 10 the more appropriate route? Or is it so descriptive or generic as to be unregistrable in either Part?

Step two: check the exclusions under sections 11, 12, and 13. Does the mark contain deceptive, scandalous, or morally offensive material? Does it contain a chemical substance name under section 12? Does it too closely resemble an existing registered mark in the same class under section 13?

Step three: advise on the registration strategy. Part A is the stronger registration and should be sought wherever the mark is inherently distinctive. If Part A is not immediately achievable because the mark lacks inherent distinctiveness but the client has used it extensively, advise on building an acquired distinctiveness argument through evidence of use. If only Part B is achievable in the short term, advise the client to continue using the mark and to build toward a later Part A application on the strength of acquired distinctiveness.

Step four: flag the non-use risk. Advise the client that registration without use creates a vulnerability: after five years of continuous non-use, a third party can apply to remove the mark from the Register. Active trading under the mark in Nigeria is essential to maintaining the registration’s validity.

Step five: address the seven-year incontestability benefit. Advise the client that after seven years of unchallenged Part A registration, the mark becomes conclusively valid and significantly harder to attack. The strategy of allowing a Part A registration to reach this milestone without successful challenge is commercially important for brand security.

10. Common Student Mistakes

Treating Parts A and B as equally strong. They are not. Part A confers stronger protection, including the seven-year incontestability benefit under section 14. Part B leaves the registration vulnerable to challenge on distinctiveness grounds throughout its life and gives the court discretion to decline an injunction. A student who treats them as equivalent misstates the law.

Applying the distinctiveness standard for Part A to a Part B application. Part A requires that the mark be adapted to distinguish; Part B requires only that it be capable of distinguishing. An application correctly advised as Part B will fail if assessed against the more demanding Part A test.

Ignoring the non-use removal ground. Students frequently advise clients to register a mark without flagging the obligation to use it. Section 31(2) and the Procter and Gamble v. Global Soap case make clear that registration without bona fide use creates a removable registration. Three months of use in twenty years is not enough.

Assuming registration takes effect from the date of the certificate. Registration takes effect retrospectively from the date of the original application under section 22. This is commercially significant because it means infringement occurring between the filing date and the certificate date is actionable.

Failing to distinguish registrable descriptive marks from unregistrable generic marks. A descriptive mark can be registered in Part B, or in Part A with evidence of acquired distinctiveness. A generic mark cannot be registered at all. Students who refuse to register any descriptive mark, treating it as equivalent to a generic mark, are applying too broad an exclusion.

11. Quick Reference Table

12. Key Cases

The Procter and Gamble Ltd v. Global Soap and Detergent Industries Ltd is the leading Nigerian authority on the requirement of bona fide use following trademark registration. The court ordered expungement of the “Flash” mark, registered since 1960 and used only for a three-month period in 1988, on the ground that intermittent, token use falling far short of genuine commercial trading activity does not constitute the bona fide use that defeats a non-use removal application. The case is essential reading for any examination answer involving a client who has registered a mark but has not actively traded under it.

CPL Industries Limited v. Morrison Industries Plc establishes the principle that the determination of whether one mark is likely to cause confusion in the course of trade is a question for the court alone to decide, guided by evidence. The case confirms that in trademark registration opposition proceedings, the Registrar and ultimately the court must apply an objective consumer perception test in assessing the similarity between marks, and that the question of likelihood of deception cannot be resolved by the parties’ subjective assessments alone.

Phillip Morris Inc. v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (Export) Ltd addressed the Registrar’s discretion to accept an application for registration of a mark similar to an existing registration. The court confirmed that where the Registrar is satisfied that similar marks in the same class would not cause confusion or deception, having regard to the nature of the goods, the Registrar has a discretion to accept the later application subject to appropriate conditions or limitations. This case is relevant to multi-brand markets where several similar marks co-exist in the same product category.

Nabisco Inc. v. Allied Biscuits Co. Ltd illustrates the application of the section 13 identical and resembling marks exclusion in the context of goods in the food and biscuit category, confirming that the test of whether a mark so nearly resembles another as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion is applied by reference to the overall impression of the mark on a consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection rather than by a side-by-side comparison of every element.

Footnotes

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

² Section 9(1)(a)-(e), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004; <cite index=”13-1″>Francisca Oluremi Dawodu, ‘Registration of Trademarks in Nigeria’ (Country Hill Attorneys, 2017), noting that applications under Part A require the mark to be adapted to distinguish and listing the five categories under section 9(1).</cite>

³ Section 9(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁴ Section 9(3), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁵ Section 14, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004; <cite index=”12-1″>ICLG, ‘Trade Marks Laws and Regulations Report 2026: Nigeria’ (2026), confirming that a mark registered under the TMA that has attained incontestable status following at least seven years on the register is deemed conclusively valid for all purposes unless obtained by fraud or found to be deceptive, scandalous, or contrary to law or public morality.</cite>

⁶ Section 10(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁷ Section 10(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004; <cite index=”13-1″>Dawodu (n 2), explaining that a mark can be registrable under Part B even if it is not distinctive, provided it is capable of becoming distinctive in future with prolonged use.</cite>

⁸ Section 10(5), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

⁹ <cite index=”8-1″>Preem & Partners, ‘Distinctiveness as the Criterion for Trademark Registration in Nigeria’ (2024), discussing generic marks and fanciful marks across the distinctiveness spectrum.</cite>

¹⁰ Section 11(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹¹ Section 11(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹² Section 12, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹³ Section 13, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹⁴ CPL Industries Limited v. Morrison Industries Plc; IP II Slide, Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan (course materials).

¹⁵ <cite index=”9-1″>Law.asia, ‘A quickstep guide to trademark law in Nigeria’ (January 2025), confirming that it usually takes 12 to 18 months from filing to issuance of the registration certificate barring further delays.</cite>

¹⁶ Section 17(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹⁷ Section 17(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹⁸ Section 18(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

¹⁹ <cite index=”12-1″>ICLG (n 5), confirming that the official cost for obtaining a trademark in Nigeria is USD 80, subject to review by the Trademarks Registry.</cite>

²⁰ Section 22, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004; IP II Slide, Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan (course materials), noting that trademark registration takes effect from the date of the application.

²¹ Section 18(7), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²² Section 19(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²³ Section 20(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004; IP II Slide (n 20), noting the opposition period is two months from publication.

²⁴ Section 21, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁵ Section 22, Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁶ Section 23(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁷ <cite index=”13-1″>Dawodu (n 2), noting that a certificate of registration is valid for the first seven years and subject to renewal every fourteen years, and that an application for renewal should be made not less than three months from the due date.</cite>

²⁸ Section 31(2), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

²⁹ The Procter and Gamble Ltd v. Global Soap and Detergent Industries Ltd; IP II Slide (n 20), noting the court held that three months of use of the “Flash” mark was not bona fide use.

³⁰ Section 5(1), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

³¹ Section 10(5), Trade Marks Act Cap T13 LFN 2004.

³² <cite index=”12-1″>ICLG (n 5), confirming that certification marks are recognised in Nigeria but that the Trademarks Act is silent on the registration regime for collective marks.</cite>

³³ Ibid.