Story By: Nii Okpoti Odamtten/Muhammed Faisal Mustapha
The Accra High Court, Commercial Court 1 has adjourned its ruling on a motion seeking to transfer a trademark dispute involving Amega Herbal Bitters to the Amasaman High Court.
The motion was filed by the lawyers for Kojo Boadu popularly called Mark 2 who was the Defendant /Applicant in response to a preliminary legal action instituted by Mr. Albert Asiedu Boadu, Chief Executive Officer of Dr. Asiedu Amega Herbal Bitters, over the alleged fraudulent use and registration of the Amega brand name.
The presiding Judge heard arguments from both sides before reserving a date to deliver her ruling.
Counsel for Mr. Albert Asiedu Boadu, Lawyer B.K. Essibuah, told the court that the suit was properly brought before the Commercial Division of the High Court, as it concerns matters of trade, commerce and trademark protection.
According to Lawyer B.K. Essibuah, the defendant, Mark 2, was originally engaged in the production of sachet water under the brand “Mark 2 Pure Water” and later became a distributor of Amega Herbal Bitters produced by Mr. Albert Asiedu Boadu.
He alleged that his client subsequently discovered that Mark 2 had begun producing a similar herbal drink using the same Amega name and label, despite not being the originator of the product.
“This action goes directly against our client’s commercial rights. The defendant has allegedly gone ahead to register and trademark the Amega name and is using it to the detriment of our client,” counsel submitted.
He explained that the relief being sought before the court includes the revocation of what he described as a fraudulently obtained trademark registration, insisting that the matter squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.
Lawyers for Mark 2, however, argued that the case should be transferred to the Amasaman High Court on grounds that the defendant lives and operates his business within the Ga West Municipality, and that hearing the case in Accra would cause inconvenience.
Lawyer B.K. Essibuah opposed the application, maintaining that convenience should not override the clear commercial nature of the dispute and the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division.
The court, after listening to submissions from both parties, adjourned the case and fixed a date to deliver its ruling on the application.
Counsel for Mr. Asiedu Boadu expressed optimism that the ruling would go in favour of his client.