The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday ruled that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has exclusive ownership of the eNaira digital currency platform.
In a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, the court issued a perpetual injunction restraining eNaira Payment Solutions Limited from presenting itself as the registered owner of the “eNaira” trademark.
The court acknowledged that the company had been registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) since 2004 but held that its name, which is closely tied to Nigeria’s sovereignty, was misleading.
“The name chosen by the plaintiff on its incorporation is in the circumstances unregistrable due to the misleading nature of the name, which suggests government patronage,” Justice Omotosho added.
The court further noted that evidence showed the Trademark Registry, in a letter dated November 15, 2021, had informed the company of the cancellation and withdrawal of approvals granted for its applications for the “eNaira” name under classes 36 and 42.
It also held that the company was notified that “eNaira is a national intellectual property and constitutes a symbol and national asset of Nigeria.”
According to the ruling, the private firm, which sought to strip the CBN of ownership rights to the digital platform, has no superior legal claim to the trademark compared to the apex bank.
“A party that has no legal right cannot be entitled to an injunction.
“The purport of this is that, prima facie, the plaintiff has no valid trademark to the exclusive use of the eNaira trademark,” the court held.
Justice Omotosho also emphasised that under Section 852(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), the CAC has the authority to reject or direct a change of name for any company that suggests government affiliation.
“The ‘eNaira’ name is so closely linked to the legal tender of Nigeria, which is exclusively controlled by the CBN.
“The plaintiff, with the name ‘eNaira,’ even though it had been incorporated since 2004, has a misleading name.
“An average person on the street is most likely to think that the plaintiff is an agent of the Federal Government or the CBN.
“The proposed business of the plaintiff, which according to the evidence-in-chief of PW-1 is the creation and control of a digital currency on their electronic payment platform, no doubt creates the impression that the plaintiff has the authority of the Federal Government of Nigeria to issue and control a digital form of the Naira.
“A misleading name is a ground for the 3rd defendant (CAC) to direct a company to change its name,” the court added.
The court held that the law empowers the CAC to mandate a company to change its name within six weeks of such directive.
“The plaintiff had six weeks to comply with the directive, which was issued on 9th December 2021.
“The plaintiff has, however, not complied with this directive.”
Justice Omotosho warned that allowing the firm to retain control of the name would amount to ceding national sovereignty to a private entity.
“Any digital currency with the name ‘eNaira’ will no doubt create the impression that it is an official digital form of the Naira.
“The plaintiff cannot assert control over the ‘eNaira’ name or issue it.
“This would be disastrous for the Nigerian economy and will create skepticism among users, as it is not guaranteed by the Central Bank of Nigeria.
“The claims of the plaintiff are therefore bound to fail, while the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants will succeed on the strength of the evidence before this court.
“In the final analysis, this court will rule against the plaintiff, as the claim is incompetent on grounds that it was not brought under the appellate jurisdiction of this court.
“Furthermore, the facts and the law are against the plaintiff.
“In contrast, the counter-claims of the 1st and 3rd defendants succeed,” the court held.
As part of its orders, the court directed the company to immediately adopt a new name that does not include the word “Naira.”
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/113/2021, was dismissed, and the court awarded N10 million in costs in favour of the CBN, which had filed a counter-claim.
However, the plaintiff had argued that the CBN’s move to take over a name it had used for over 22 years in international business was a violation of its rights.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Mr. David Ityonyman, contended that the term “Naira” was not exclusive to Nigeria.
“Nothing stops India from having a Naira. Also, countries like the U.S. and Canada make use of dollars. None of them has laid claim to the name.
“The plaintiff had used the name ‘Naira’ for a long time and enjoyed substantial goodwill before 2021, when the defendant sought to take over the name,” Ityonyman submitted.
Credit: thenationonlineng.net
