Patents and Designs Registry rules in favour of Cleansimur, orders Jigsimur Plus not to produce products under disputed label bottle design
The Administrative Panel Division of the Patents and Designs Registry, Commercial Law Department, Abuja, has ordered Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited to change an industrial design registered in its name and desist from producing or selling products under the disputed “Jigsimur Label Bottle Design.”
The panel, in a ruling delivered on September 2, 2026, also directed the respondent, Jigsimur Plus, to remove the name “JIGSIMUR” from Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804, following a petition filed by Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd and Cleansimure International Ltd.
The panel further directed that Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/5718, titled “Cleansimur Health Drink Label on Bottle Design”, should immediately proceed for registration.
The ruling followed a petition dated November 10, 2025, in which the petitioners challenged the registration of the “Jigsimur Label Bottle Design” by Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited.
Muoneke Paschal Oluchukwu, Esq., appeared for the petitioners, while Chijioke Stanley Ezeli, Esq., and George Ikoli & Okagbue represented the respondent.
At a later stage of the proceedings, David Ajaba, Esq., holding the brief of Anthony George Ikoli, SAN, appeared for the respondent.
According to the court filing, the petitioners alleged that Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited was formerly an agent and sales representative of Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd, a South African company producing herbal health drinks, and therefore had no lawful authority to register the disputed industrial design in Nigeria.
The petitioners alleged that the respondent, after registering “JIGSIMURPLUS” as a trademark, proceeded to register the “Jigsimur Label Bottle Design”, despite allegedly knowing that the design belonged to the petitioners.
The petitioners said the registration was made in bad faith and amounted to a misrepresentation of proprietorship and a breach of trademark and industrial design principles.
In support of their petition, the petitioners tendered, among other documents, an authorisation letter from Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd to Cleansimure International Ltd; an authorisation empowering counsel to act for Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd; documentary evidence of prior use and publication of the Jigsimur design; a trademark certificate for “JIGSIMUR”; the disputed design registration; and evidence of termination of the agency relationship with the respondent.
The respondent, in its response dated February 17, 2026, filed through its then counsel, Chijioke Stanley Ezeli, Esq., of Luxlex Attorneys, denied the allegations.
In its defence, Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited described the petitioners’ claims as false, misleading and unfounded, insisting that it was lawfully appointed and authorised as the Nigerian representative of Jigsimur SA Original Pty.
It further maintained that the design certificate issued to it was lawful and complied with applicable statutory and administrative requirements.
The respondent also contended that the Registry had not been misled and that the design registration enjoyed a presumption of regularity.
It further alleged that the petition was an attempt by the petitioners to benefit from its established goodwill, reputation and market presence and to create confusion in the marketplace in connection with the sale and distribution of the petitioners’ “Cleansimur” product.
The respondent urged the panel to dismiss the petition and affirm the validity of its design registration.
In support of its case, the respondent tendered a power of attorney from Jigsimur Original Pty; agency and representation documents between it and the South African company; a letter of exclusive authorisation from Jigsimur SA Original Pty to the Registrar of Patents and Designs dated February 13, 2026; and a sworn affidavit of the CEO of Jigsimur SA Original Pty dated February 16, 2026.
At the hearing on April 14, 2026, conducted pursuant to Designs Rule 40 of the Patents and Designs Act, the panel reminded the parties that the Administrative Panel constituted a first-level alternative dispute resolution mechanism intended to facilitate an amicable resolution and avoid prolonged litigation.
The petitioners adopted their petition and urged the panel to deregister the respondent’s design.
While adopting their petition, the petitioners maintained that they never authorised the respondent to register the “Jigsimur Label and Bottle Design” in Nigeria, arguing that the respondent’s agency relationship with them had been terminated on April 23, 2023.
The petitioners also tendered extracts of email correspondence and bills of lading relating to consignments allegedly supplied to the respondent before the termination of the agency relationship.
The respondent, in turn, maintained that its design satisfied all registration requirements. It relied on a power of attorney dated October 16, 2024, under which it claimed to have been appointed a representative of Jigsimur SA Original (PTY), a South African company.
It also tendered a SAHPRA licence certificate issued to Jigsimur SA Original (PTY), its certificate of registration and the power of attorney appointing the respondent as a sales representative in Nigeria.
The respondent argued that it was on the strength of those documents that it registered its company, trademark and industrial design in Nigeria. It also relied on a NAFDAC temporary certificate and a sworn affidavit from Jigsimur SA Original (PTY).
Following the hearing of the petition, the panel directed both parties to file final written addresses.
On the initial date fixed for ruling, David Ajaba, Esq., holding the brief of Anthony George Ikoli, SAN, for the respondent, urged the panel to grant additional time for the respondent to file its final written address, citing fair hearing as a fundamental principle of the administration of justice.
The panel consequently adjourned the ruling to September 2, 2026, after which the respondent filed its written address dated August 31, 2026.
In determining the petition, the panel said it identified three principal issues:
1. Whether the respondent was a former sales representative of the petitioner;
2. Whether the petitioner was the owner of “JIGSIMUR”; and
3. Whether the respondent’s design registration was made in bad faith.
On the first issue, the panel found that the respondent had indeed been a former sales representative of the petitioner.
It relied particularly on the termination of the agency relationship, bills of lading and email correspondence tendered by the petitioners, noting that the respondent did not deny the documents.
The panel therefore held that the respondent was a former agent of the petitioner in relation to the sale and distribution of the petitioner’s “JIGSIMUR” product in Nigeria.
On ownership, the panel stressed that intellectual property protection and enforcement were territorial, stating that ownership or protection outside Nigeria could not, by itself, determine rights within Nigeria.
The panel relied on trademark certificates Number RTM 43580 and 43581 for “JIGSIMUR”, registered in Class 5 in the name of CAN AFFORD PRODUCTS AND PROJECTS (PTY) LTD, which had appointed the petitioner to sell and distribute its product in Nigeria.
It described the evidence as conclusive proof that the name “JIGSIMUR” belonged to the petitioner in Nigeria and cited the Supreme Court decision in Ferodo Ltd v. Ibeto Industries Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 866) 317.
On the issue of bad faith, the panel said it examined the features of the respective labels, bottle designs and trade dress.
It concluded that the respondent had followed the features of the petitioners’ product in a manner capable of causing confusion among consumers.
The panel said such conduct was inconsistent with intellectual property norms, particularly because the product was intended for human consumption.
It consequently found that Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804, titled “Jigsimur Label Bottle Design”, belonged to the petitioner and held that the respondent’s registration was made in bad faith.
The panel consequently ordered Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited to change the disputed label and bottle industrial design.
It further ordered that Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/5718, titled “Cleansimur Health Drink Label on Bottle Design”, be allowed to proceed immediately for registration.
The respondent was also ordered to desist from producing and selling products under Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804 and to remove the name “JIGSIMUR” from the design.
The panel said the orders directing the respondent to change the design, cease production and sales, and remove the “JIGSIMUR” name would become enforceable 30 calendar days after the ruling.
It warned that failure to comply would empower the Registry to correct the position by expunging the disputed design from the Register of Industrial Designs.
