‘Omotola’ is Not an Invented Name, Cannot be Trademarked – Lai Omotola to Nollywood Actress, Omotola
Entrepreneur and the Group Managing Director of CFL Group, Lai Omotola, has reacted to the decision of Nollywood Veteran Actress, Omotola Jalade-Ekeinde, inadopting the name ‘Omotola’ as a trademark.
The business icon noted that Jalade-Ekeinde will be running afoul of the trademark law if she uses the name ‘Omotola’ as a trademark, stressing that the name is a common name and not an invention.
The foremost entrepreneur stated that on getting the wind of what Jalade-Ekeinde had decided to do, he contacted an external solicitor in Abuja, who did findings at the Federal Ministry of Trade and Industry and found out that Red Hot Concept is her company name and what she just did was to add ‘Omotola’ to it. Lai Omotola said: “‘Omotola’ can’t be registered as a trademark. You cannot register a common name.
The purpose of a trademark is to register creativity. It is not an invention.” The entrepreneur further claimed that the name originated from Ijebu-Ode and has been existing for close to 100 years. In his words: “The name ‘Omotola’ has been existing since 1924. It is through the name that Omotola Estate came into being and also Omotola Plaza.
“It is through the same name that the late legal luminary and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos, Professor Jelili Omotola(SAN) came out. “The name is not an invention, so using the name as a trademark is illegal and totally impossible. Ministry of Trade and Industry has found out that ‘Omotola’ is not a trademark.”
The 43-year old Nollywood star, on February 18, launched the name ‘Omotola’ as her new trademark with registration number 2018-08-26/NG/TM0/2018/134992 underclass 41-Education and Entertainment Services. Section 5(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1967 provides for the exclusive right of a proprietor to use the trademark in respect of the goods or services it was registered for, and truly, it prohibits the usage of the common name as a trademark, most especially the one likely to cause confusion in the minds of the people.
Section 5(2) states that “without prejudice to the generality of the right to use a trademark, the marks shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who not being the proprietor of the trademark, uses a mark identical to it or so nearly resembling it as it is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the cause of the trade-in relation to any goods in respect of which it was registered.”
