Beecham Group Ltd. v. Esdee Food Products Nigeria Ltd

Law Cases and Principles

Beecham Group Ltd. v. Esdee Food Products Nigeria Ltd.

Court: Court of Appeal (Lagos Judicial Division)
Judgment Delivered: June 12, 1985
Citation: 28 NIPJD [CA.1985] 12/1984
Suit No.: CA/L/12/84
Jurisdiction: Nigeria

Coram:

  • Idris Legbo Kutigi, J.C.A.
  • Philip Nnaemeka-Agu, J.C.A.
  • Uthman Mohammed, J.C.A. (Delivered the Lead Judgment)

Appearances

  • Appellants: B. Omotayo (with R. N. Agu)
  • Respondents: O. Kayode (with O. J. Idigbe); Brief prepared by David Garrick

Case Summary

Trademark Infringement – Remedies and Locus Standi

This case concerned the sale of a non-alcoholic beverage called “Glucos-Aid” by Esdee Food Products, which Beecham Group Ltd., owners of the registered trademark “Lucozade” (Nos. 5452 & 5456), claimed infringed upon their rights.

I. Facts of the Case

  • Plaintiffs (Respondents): Beecham Group Ltd., registered owners of Lucozade, filed for:
    • An injunction restraining the use of “Glucos-Aid.”
    • Destruction of infringing goods.
    • N500,000 in damages or an account of profits.
  • Defendants (Appellants): Esdee Food Products sold a product under the name “Glucos-Aid.”

The Federal High Court ruled in favor of Beecham, awarding:

  • Damages: N5,000
  • Injunction and destruction of infringing items

II. Issues Raised on Appeal

  1. Failure to Register Agreement
    • Whether non-registration under the National Office of Industrial Property Decree No. 70 of 1979 invalidates the agreement between Beecham Group and its Nigerian distributor.
  2. Multiplicity of Plaintiffs
    • Whether the suit was improperly instituted by more than one plaintiff.
  3. Proof of Infringement
    • Whether “Glucos-Aid” was shown to be confusingly similar to “Lucozade.”

III. Decision of the Court of Appeal

On Decree No. 70 of 1979

  • The court ruled that non-registration does not invalidate or render an agreement unenforceable.
  • The Decree only restricts foreign exchange approval, not legal enforceability.

On Multiple Plaintiffs

  • Only Beecham Group Ltd. was party to the suit.
  • The use of plural in references does not mean multiple legal plaintiffs existed.
  • Referring to companies in the plural is common practice, per the Interpretation Act 1964, Section 14(b).

On Trademark Infringement

  • The Court reaffirmed the test from Bell Sons v. Godwin Alco: comparison must consider sight and sound.
  • Held: “Glucos-Aid” sounds similar to “Lucozade” and could mislead the public.

“The law of trademarks is aimed at the subtle as well as the obvious infractions… both ears and eyes must be involved in the comparison.” — Mohammed, J.C.A.

  • Referencing Alban Pharmacy Ltd. v. Sterling Products, the court emphasized phonetic resemblance and the risk of confusion.
  • The Appellants did not disprove that Beecham Group was the registered owner of Lucozade.

IV. Judgment

  • Appeal Dismissed
  • Damages reduced from N5,000 to N2,000
  • Costs Awarded: N300 to the Respondents

V. Concurring Opinions

  • Nnaemeka-Agu, J.C.A.: Fully agreed with the lead judgment.
  • Kutigi, J.C.A.: Agreed but noted damages should be reduced to N2,000 due to lack of detailed proof of loss.

VI. Cases Cited

VII. Legal Principle Affirmed

A successful trademark infringement claim does not require actual deception to be proven, but must demonstrate that a reasonable likelihood of confusion exists—especially when considering customers with imperfect recollection or low literacy.