Kenyan Court Sides with Style Industries in Trademark Dispute Over Hair Products

Source: Anna Maloverjan

In a growing sign that Africa’s beauty and fashion sectors are facing more rigorous legal scrutiny, in 2018, the High Court in Nairobi granted an injunction against Sana Industries Co. Limited, barring the company from using the marks “VIP COLLECTION” and “VIP PREMIUM COLLECTION” in a dispute filed by Style Industries Limited, a Kenyan-based beauty company and registered trademark holder.

At the heart of the case is Style Industries’ registered Trade Mark No. 65629, “VIP COLLECTION,” covering hair extensions and related products. According to court filings, the trademark was assigned to Style Industries through a formal asset acquisition and has since been used in the company's product packaging and marketing across Kenya and other African markets. The company argued that Sana’s continued use of “VIP PREMIUM COLLECTION” on competing products constituted both infringement and unlawful interference with statutory trademark rights.

Sana, in response, claimed it had been using “VIP PREMIUM COLLECTION” since 2008—before Style Industries acquired its mark in 2009—and that its packaging had a distinct colour scheme, typeface, and logo layout. More crucially, Sana framed “VIP” as a generic, descriptive term often used in beauty branding to connote luxury or exclusivity, not to designate trade origin. The company also argued that Style Industries had failed to show substantial consumer confusion or damage.

But the Court wasn’t persuaded.

Strict Liability and Statutory Infringement

In a decision that reflects an increasingly structured approach to trademark enforcement across African courts, the judge underscored that statutory trademark rights are strictly protected once registered. “What is sought to be protected in cases of infringement is the proprietary right obtained by registration, and not the reputation or goodwill,” the Court noted—signalling that unlike passing off claims, evidence of confusion or deception is not required to prove infringement.

This point was key: the Court held that once a mark is registered, the use of a confusingly similar or identical mark—regardless of context or design variations—may amount to infringement. As such, the burden shifted squarely to Sana Industries, which failed to displace Style Industries’ exclusive statutory rights over “VIP COLLECTION.”

Damages Not an Adequate Remedy

The Court also addressed the question of whether monetary damages could suffice in the case of proven infringement. Citing Joseph Siro Mosioma v. H.F.C.K and Others, the judge reaffirmed that damages cannot substitute for the breach of a crystallised statutory right. “A party cannot be condemned to take damages in lieu of his crystallised right which can be protected by an order of injunction,” the Court observed. On that basis, Style Industries was granted interim relief.

On the Balance of Convenience

The decision also leaned on the principle that courts should minimise the risk of injustice when determining interim remedies. Referencing Films Rover International (1986) and the Kenyan case of Suleiman v. Amboseli Resort Ltd, the Court held that granting Style’s application would cause less harm than denying it—particularly since the mark is already registered and use by the defendant could further entrench confusion.

Attempted Anton Piller Order Rejected

Interestingly, Style Industries also sought an Anton Piller order—a rarely granted remedy that allows one party to search the other’s premises and preserve evidence in IP cases where there is a real risk of destruction. But the Court dismissed that prayer, stating that the Plaintiff had already accessed key evidence (including packaging samples) and had annexed them to affidavits. Since the defendant also voluntarily submitted images of its products, there was no risk of spoliation or concealment.

Final Orders

The Court issued a temporary injunction restraining Sana Industries and its agents from “manufacturing, advertising, distributing, or selling” any products bearing the names “VIP COLLECTION” or “VIP PREMIUM COLLECTION,” or any mark “similar to or bearing close resemblance” to Style Industries’ registered trademark, pending full trial.

Costs were awarded to Style Industries.

Why It Matters

This case underscores the value of formal registration and the growing seriousness with which African courts are treating IP disputes in the beauty and fashion sectors. The ruling also highlights a global trend: courts increasingly prioritise trademark registration over claims of prior use, especially in countries where IP law follows a registration-based system rather than a purely common law one.

For brands operating across African markets, particularly in fast-moving consumer goods like hair, fashion, and cosmetics, the message is clear—generic-sounding or descriptive names do not shield companies from infringement claims if those names are part of a registered mark.

Key Takeaways:

• Trademark registration offers powerful statutory rights, often outweighing claims of prior or parallel use.

• Generic terms like “VIP” may be considered distinctive when used as part of a registered trademark in specific market contexts.

• Courts are increasingly unwilling to accept damages as an alternative to injunctive relief where trademark rights are concerned.

• Anton Piller orders remain a high-threshold remedy requiring concrete evidence of imminent destruction or concealment.