Can Trade Mark Registrability Be Refused for Descriptive Quality Words Under Trade Marks Act?

In commercial brand naming, businesses frequently select laudatory adjectives and descriptive expressions—such as ‘Best’, ‘Superior’, ‘Premium’, ‘Ultra Pure’, or ‘Delicious’—to identify their consumer goods.

Under Section 9(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap. T13, LFN 2004), for a trademark to be registrable in Part A of the Register, it must consist of a word or words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods.

Purely descriptive terms indicating the superior quality, efficacy, flavor, or physical composition of a product cannot be registered as exclusive trademarks by a single manufacturer.

Step-by-Step Procedure to Resolve This Legal Matter:

1. Preserve Contemporaneous Evidence: Collate physical receipts, verified bank timestamps, stamped letters, and electronic communication logs prior to formal intervention.
2. Deliver Statutory Pre-Action Notice: Issue a formal written demand outlining the specific statutory breach and giving the opposing party statutory time to remedy the grievance.
3. Engage Accredited Legal Counsel: Initiate judicial proceedings before the competent court of record or submit an official petition to the relevant regulatory commission.

The statutory policy underpinning Section 9 is that honest commercial traders must be free to use ordinary descriptive English or indigenous words to describe the genuine qualities of their own merchandise without fear of infringement actions.

Key Evidential Considerations & Statutory Benchmarks:

• Documented statutory breach and verified timeline of events.
• Jurisdictional competence of the regulatory agency or superior court.
• Contemporaneous written correspondences, notices, and financial records.
• Quantifiable proof of pecuniary loss or civil rights violation.

“The rule of law ensures that statutory rights and duties cannot be compromised by informal arrangements or administrative fiat; every citizen has the constitutional right to due process.”
— Nigerian Legal Precedent & Constitutional Jurisprudence

Where an applicant seeks to register a purely descriptive word without establishing that it has acquired overwhelming secondary commercial meaning through decades of exclusive nationwide usage, the Registrar of Trade Marks must refuse registration.

The Federal High Court in intellectual property adjudication has held that granting exclusive rights over common laudatory words improperly creates an anti-competitive monopoly over ordinary language.

Under Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act, a mark having direct reference to quality may be considered for Part B registration only upon compelling proof of distinctiveness.

Section 38 of the Act protects third-party traders who make bona fide descriptive use of terms indicating the quality or characteristics of their goods.

In accordance with Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), every person is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law.

Under Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution vests judicial powers of the Federation in the courts established for the Federation, ensuring judicial review over administrative, corporate, and customary determinations.

Pursuant to the Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proof in civil proceedings rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly affirmed that rules of procedure and statutory compliance are designed to ensure substantial justice rather than technical defeat of constitutional and statutory rights.

Under the Interpretation Act (Cap. I23, LFN 2004), enactments must be interpreted purposively to give effect to the intention of the legislature while preserving established common law and equitable doctrines.

Fundamental human rights enshrined under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) remain paramount and non-derogable except in strictly specified instances sanctioned by law.

For direct regulatory verification, official complaints, or accessing statutory registers without third-party fees, members of the public can consult the official portal of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) Companies Registry.

Administrative bodies and regulatory agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers must observe natural justice: audi alteram partem (hear both sides) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.