This is why many organisations do not take it lightly when their trademarks are copied.
In line with the country’s law, trademarks are provided for by the Trademarks, Patents and Designs Registry, Commercial Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment. And this is under the Trade Marks Act, Cap T 13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and the Trademark Regulations 1990.
The importance of trademark and product style protection against passing-off by others trying to deceive the consumers to believe their product shares the same quality with the original cannot be over emphasised.
Disputes arising from infringements of trademarks copyrights, identity theft and product style copying abound in the western world, as well as in Nigeria.
Interestingly, one of the major global marketing disputes regarding trademarks is usually associated with established brands and a catching-up or weaker brand passing-off the established brand.
This appears to be the bone of contention in a current legal battle regarding product identity theft and trademark infringement by the Mamuda Beverages on its Pop Power energy drink with similar identities in bottle, cover and size, which is a reflection of a similar identity of the current market leader, Fearless Energy Drink, a product of Rite Foods Limited.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Mamuda Beverages Nigeria Limited would swim in troubled water. In 2022, the Coca-Cola Company sued Mamuda for infringing on the Trademark of Coca-Cola in Nigeria.
The global beverage company filed a lawsuit against Mamuda claiming it used the word ‘pop’ when selling its fizzy drink in Nigeria for years. The issue was whether Pop Cola, a product sold by Mamuda Beverages Nigeria limited, was an infringement on the Coca-Cola trademark.
As a result of the current alleged violation, Mamuda Beverages was dragged to a Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, on 28th day of January, by Rite Foods Limited for infringing on the trademark and design elements of its Fearless Energy Drink with the launch of a similar-looking product, Pop Power.
Pursuant to this, on March 4, 2025, before his Lordship, the Honourable Justice I.E. Ekwo, consent judgment was delivered, as published by many news platforms.
The case led to the grant of injunctive reliefs, including Anton Piller orders, after which Mamuda opted for a settlement. Under the terms of that settlement, Mamuda in admittance of the violation undertook to destroy all infringing Pop Power Energy Drink products — an exercise confirmed duly carried out, with visual and pictorial evidence provided.
Mamuda equally pledged to desist from any further violations of Rite Foods’ intellectual property rights. Under the terms of that settlement, Mamuda in admittance of the violation undertook to destroy all infringing Pop Power Energy Drink products — an exercise confirmed duly carried out, with visual and pictorial evidence provided. Mamuda equally pledged to desist from any further violations of Rite Foods’ intellectual property rights.
When it was assumed that the issue had been laid to rest, especially with the destruction of the existing POP power energy drinks as ordered by the court, Memuda allegedly, in what appears like a circumvention of the earlier consent judgment, came out through a backdoor again with a new package that still appears closer and strikingly similar in identity to the Fearless Energy drink.
As a result, Rite Foods raised fresh concerns over what has been described as “ circumvention of a consent judgement previously agreed between the parties’
In an unexpected turn, Mamuda didn’t only reintroduce Pop Power into the market, but with only cosmetic adjustments to its appearance. Rite Foods maintains that these changes are minor and do little to address the original issues of consumer confusion.
Reports from the market indicate that the new Pop Power continues to be informally referred to as “small Fearless,” reinforcing concerns that the revised product may not only breach the spirit of the earlier agreement but could also undermine consumer clarity and brand differentiation.
A source said that the major concern of Rite Foods Limited is consumer protection as most Fearless Energy consumers erroneously mistake a lower quality product for their market leader product.
This sequence of events, in Rite Foods’ view, raises broader questions about adherence to judicial outcomes and the integrity of the system safeguarding intellectual property rights.
By proceeding with a product that perpetuates confusion so soon after a formal resolution, Mamuda’s actions risk compromising confidence in dispute resolution mechanisms critical for fair business practice.
On the fresh matter before the court, our source clarified that, contrary to some media misinterpretations, Rite Foods’ ex parte motion before the Federal High Court was not denied. Rather, the Court elected to first hear Mamuda’s preliminary objection—a procedural step that does not affect the substance or merits of Rite Foods’ case.
In reaffirming its position, Rite Foods stressed its continuous commitment to the protection of its brands, its consumers, and the principles of innovation and fair competition in Nigeria’s marketplace. The company emphasised that genuine business growth must be anchored on originality and respect for intellectual property, rather than imitation and fraudulent business practices.
Meanwhile, Memuda, the producer of the Pop Energy drink, has described Rite Foods’ fresh legal move as “bullying”, stating through paid post in several publications that it had complied with the earlier consent judgment by the court.
In what appears like inadvertently advertising its earlier guilt and underplaying the trademark effect on consumers, Memuda is relying on certain slight changes it has made to the Pop Energy drink to rationalise its current strikingly similar package to that of Fearless Energy Drink .
As the legal process continues, it is believed that justice will be served and that the rights of innovators and creators in Nigeria’s business environment will be firmly protected to strengthen the confidence of genuine investors.
However, some legal experts have argued that trademark, passing off and similar identity concerning businesses and products are infringement. What this means is that a product or trademark registered or used by a company for years and already established and registered in the consciousness of consumers cannot be adopted or copied by a new manufacturer.
One of the experts, Mr. Kabir Akingbolu, a Principal Partner, at Salawu, Akingbolu & Co. Lagos said: “Passing off is a strict and serious commercial offence and infringement when it bothers on trademark. Looking at the issues at hand, the two bottles; Fearless and Pop Power, is a clear case of passing-off. To start with, Fearless has been in the market for years. It came earlier, and it has become known and registered in the consciousness of consumers. From the cover, to the bottle, to the size and even the colour, put side by side, it is obvious that Pop Power was out to benefit from the market acceptability profile and identity that promoters of fearless have built over the years.
“To this end, it’s safe to conclude that Pop Power is liable for passing off Fearless drink as a registered brand and under commercial law that guides competition. It is never allowed. It’s a law cleverly put in place so that owners of established and registered trademarks are not infringed upon or exploited. Reaping from the efforts of another manufacturing company to sell your product is illegal.”
Speaking further, Akingbolu argued that Fearless, having been in the market for years and registered in the consciousness of all – including those who are not lettered, has earned consumers’ trust and loyalty, which can be eroded by Pop Power infringement if not immediately nipped in the bud.
“For instance, if you put the two products before illiterates and kids who could neither write nor read, the probability that they would choose indiscriminately is very high. It’s only the educated people who can identify Fearless from Pop Power in this case. To me, it’s a clear case of infringement on the proprietary interest of Fearless and its registered trademark. It’s not permitted in law. In this case, it’s worse, and the manufacturers of Fearless can claim damages because owners of Pop Power had admitted earlier, and they turned back to do a closer version in identity.
“In other words, repeating the wrong attitude the court will come heavily at. At this stage, I can only advise the promoters of Fearless, not only to claim damages but also, to approach court for injunction to restrict Mamuda from further production of the controversial Pop Power, pending the determination of the substantive matter they must have filed. Otherwise, it will destroy the age-long integrity of Fearless in the marketplace.” he stated.
