The eNaira Suit ‘FHC/ABJ/CS/1113/2021’: EPSL v CBN
New developments have emerged in the Central Bank of Nigeria’s claims of adopting eNaira sometime in July 2021. Consolidated and Amended as FHC/ABJ/CS/1113/2021, where eNaira Payment Solutions Limited the plaintiff and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and the Registrar of the Nigerian Trademark Registry are defendants is currently presided over by Justice Omotosho:
The Central Bank of Nigeria in its further amendment statement of defense states: “In specific response to paragraph 19(vi), the 1st Defendant states that it is the statutory body responsible for issuance, administration and management of legal tender currency in Nigeria and the “ENaira” constitutes Nigeria’s statutory asset and intellectual property. Furthermore, the only registered Proprietor of the trademark “eNaira” is the 1st Defendant.”
However, in response, “the Plaintiff states that the 1st Defendant’s claim is contradictory, deceptive, and intended to mislead this honorable court. Furthermore, the Plaintiff states that: (i) Given the 2nd Defendant’s correct assertion that national assets are not registrable under S.62(1)(a) of Trademarks Act CAP T13 LFN 2004 and other International Instruments that Nigeria is signatory to, the 1st Defendant’s possession of the eNaira trademark violates this section, also rendering its possession fraudulent, deceptive, and malicious. (ii) Since the Plaintiff has demonstrated in Paragraph 7 (c) of this reply that the word “Naira” is not a national/statutory asset, how then can the term “eNaira,” coined by the Plaintiff, be considered Nigeria’s statutory asset and intellectual property? The Plaintiff shall at the trial of this suit put the 1st Defendant to the strictest proof of the same.”
Also the first defendant says “In response to Plaintiff’s averments in paragraphs 21 & 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim, 1st Defendant states that the 2nd Defendant in exercise of its statutory duty, by letter dated 15th November, 2021 cancelled and withdrew the acceptance letter earlier issued to the Plaintiff. The 2 Defendant expressly stated in the said letter that the reason for the cancellation and withdrawal was that same had been issued in error as the name “Naira” is a National Intellectual Property Asset of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Responding to this, the Plaintiff maintained its earlier statement that “the 2nd Defendant, while this suit is pending and issues have been joined with the 1st Defendant, acted in complete contempt and disregard of the court by issuing a letter dated November 15, 2021, purportedly withdrawing the Plaintiff’s eNaira Trademark application in class 36 with Registration Number: NG/TM/O/2021/39730 and eNaira Trademark application in class 42 with Registration Number NG/TM/O/2021/39732, without explaining the error. The 1st Defendant, in obstinacy, continued with the infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark, including advertising globally, partnering with various corporate bodies and fintech companies, and colluding with the 2nd Defendant to acquire the Plaintiff’s eNaira mark in various classes while ensuring the Plaintiff’s business website platform remains inactive.”
Further in its defense, “The 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant states that it is the bonafide Registered Proprietor of the Trademark “ENaira”. A copy of the Certificate of Registration of the Trademark issued in favour of the 1st Defendant is hereby pleaded and shall be relied upon at trial.” Also “The 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant states that the digital currency is an alternative means of payment that is digital in nature, hence the addition of the initial word “E” to the already existing legal tender in Nigeria, “Naira”, which when combined becomes “eNaira.”
In response “the Plaintiff states that contrary to the 1st Defendant’s claim of “duly issued,” the 1st Defendant fraudulently obtained the Trademark eNaira by pretence, being fraudulently issued by the 2nd Defendant. Its claim of being the registered proprietor is therefore malicious and baseless. Also, that “the 1st Defendant’s Counterclaim is deceptive and misleading as the word Enaira was uniquely invented by the Plaintiff in 2004.”
As sighted in the court records, “The 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant states that notwithstanding the information available at the public domain regarding the launching of its digital currency and the benefits attached to the said launching, the Plaintiff/Defendant to the Counter Claim filed an application at the Ministry of Trade and Investment on 9th September, 2021, seeking to register the Trademark, “ENaira”, which name the 1st Defendant had already adopted as the name for its digital currency.”
Also, to this “the Plaintiff/Claimant asserts…that the 1st Defendant’s Counterclaim amounts to misrepresentation of facts as the Plaintiff, being the proprietor of the name “Enaira,” has the priority right to apply for its Trademark at any time as provided by the Trademark Act. The more reason its applications were accepted with registration numbers given by the 2nd Defendant without opposition.”
Rounding up his reply to CBN as sighted in the court records, “the Plaintiff/Claimant denies Paragraph 40 of the 1st Defendant’s Counterclaim and asserts that the 1st Defendant’s claim before this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff’s actions caused “global embarrassment” couldn’t be more embarrassing, given its own ill-actions. Such as misinforming in order to mislead the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in a letter dated January 21, 2022, as shown in the plaintiff’s evidence before this court regarding the eNaira and falsely alleging that this case involves blackmail for money when the Plaintiff duly approached this court for infringement, calling ENaira a statutory asset which is not registrable as a trademark, but maliciously and fraudulently registered it on November 1, 2021, while this suit is still Pending but vehemently asserting in its claim that “there is no registered trademark with the name “ENaira” issued to the Plaintiff or any other person.”
Is it not more embarrassing that 1st Defendant/Counterclaimant would misinform such a globally respected US federal intellectual property rights administration and this court? Moreover, did the Plaintiff cause the Supreme Court’s March 2023 ruling where the Justices unanimously declared the 1st Defendant/Counterclaimant’s cashless policy in pursuit of its digital currency “illegal and unconstitutional,” or the Obazee Presidential Investigative Report which in December 2023 labeled the 1st Defendant/Counterclaimant’s eNaira implementation “fraudulent”? Considering the widespread attention these positions have garnered globally, why hasn’t the 1st Defendant/Counterclaimant claimed it is facing global embarrassment from these issues? Did the 1st Defendant ever consider the global embarrassment it was causing itself and the nation by misinforming the USPTO? The Plaintiff shall, at the trial of this suit, require the 1st Defendant/Counterclaimant to provide strict proof of the same.”
