Kenyan asset financing startup M-KOPA has secured a crucial legal victory in a trademark infringement case against a former agent accused of exploiting its well-established brand.
The defendant, John Waweru Njenga, had registered a business named “MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories,” closely resembling M-KOPA’s branding and even incorporating a similar logo.
His business, primarily involved in selling phones and accessories, sought to capitalize on M-KOPA’s market influence.
M-KOPA initiated legal proceedings in August 2023, highlighting a growing issue in Kenya where smaller businesses adopt names and logos that imitate well-known brands to attract unsuspecting customers.
The case culminated in a ruling on January 23, 2025 when High Court Judge Peter Mulwa sided with M-KOPA, determining that Njenga’s enterprise had infringed on its trademark rights and misled consumers by falsely implying an association between the two businesses.
In his ruling, Judge Mulwa underscored the striking similarity between “MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories” and “M-Kopa Kenya Limited,” noting the potential for consumer confusion.
“Having considered the names MKopo Kastomer Care and Accessories and M-Kopa Kenya Limited, I note a striking similarity between them. In my view, the average customer may not immediately discern the difference between the two and may, therefore, believe that both represent the same product or service,” he stated.
The court further found that Njenga had unlawfully incorporated M-KOPA’s logo into his marketing efforts, a clear violation of trademark laws.
This case sheds light on a broader trend in Kenya’s informal markets, particularly in urban centers like Nairobi, where intellectual property violations are rampant. Weak enforcement of trademark and copyright laws has allowed dishonest traders to imitate successful companies, misleading consumers and unfairly benefiting from the trust these brands have built.
For M-KOPA, pursuing legal action, despite the financial burden, was necessary to protect its reputation and brand integrity. Court documents revealed that Njenga’s business was leveraging M-KOPA’s established credibility to drive its own sales, undermining the years of investment and effort M-KOPA had dedicated to its brand.
Judge Mulwa’s ruling highlights the pressing need for stronger intellectual property protections in Kenya. While trademark infringement cases are not uncommon, lax enforcement and lengthy legal processes often allow violations to persist. This lack of regulation ultimately weakens businesses’ ability to safeguard their trademarks and maintain their revenue streams.
“These acts constitute trademark infringement, as they confuse the plaintiff’s customers and undermine its exclusive rights to its mark. It dilutes the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s brand and misleads the public into believing that the defendant’s business is affiliated or authorized by the plaintiff,” Judge Mulwa affirmed.
Beyond securing M-KOPA’s rights, this ruling underscores the urgent necessity for enhanced intellectual property protections in Kenya, ensuring a fair and competitive business environment.