The Administrative Panel Division of the Patents and Designs Registry, Commercial Law Department, Abuja, has ordered Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited to alter an industrial design registered in its name and stop producing or selling products bearing the disputed “Jigsimur Label Bottle Design.”
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The panel, in a ruling delivered on September 2, 2026, also ordered the company to remove the name “JIGSIMUR” from Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804.
The ruling followed a petition filed by Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd and Cleansimure International Ltd, challenging the registration of the design by Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited.
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 to registration.
The petitioners had, in a petition dated November 10, 2025, alleged that Jigsimur Plus was formerly an agent and sales representative of Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd, a South African company producing herbal health drinks, and therefore lacked the authority to register the disputed design in Nigeria.
They further alleged that after registering “JIGSIMURPLUS” as a trademark, the respondent proceeded to register the “Jigsimur Label Bottle Design” despite allegedly knowing that the design belonged to the petitioners.
According to the petitioners, the registration was made in bad faith and amounted to a misrepresentation of proprietorship as well as a breach of trademark and industrial design principles.
In support of their petition, they tendered an authorisation letter from Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd to Cleansimure International Ltd, an authorisation empowering counsel to act for Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd, evidence of prior use and publication of the Jigsimur design, a trademark certificate for “JIGSIMUR”, the disputed design registration and evidence of the termination of the agency relationship with the respondent.
However, in its response dated February 17, 2026, the respondent, through its then counsel, Chijioke Stanley Ezeli of Luxlex Attorneys, denied the allegations.
Jigsimur Plus described the petition as false, misleading and unfounded, insisting that it had been lawfully appointed and authorised as the Nigerian representative of Jigsimur SA Original Pty.
It maintained that the design certificate issued to it was validly obtained and complied with the applicable statutory and administrative requirements.
The company also argued that the Registry had not been misled and that its design registration enjoyed a presumption of regularity.
It alleged that the petition was an attempt by the petitioners to benefit from its goodwill, reputation and market presence and create confusion in the marketplace over the sale and distribution of the petitioners’ “Cleansimur” product.
The respondent therefore urged the panel to dismiss the petition and affirm the validity of its registration.
It 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 an affidavit by the company’s Chief Executive Officer 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 was established as a first-level alternative dispute resolution mechanism aimed at facilitating amicable settlement and avoiding prolonged litigation.
The petitioners adopted their petition and urged the panel to deregister the respondent’s design.
They maintained that they had never authorised the respondent to register the “Jigsimur Label and Bottle Design” in Nigeria, arguing that the agency relationship between the parties had been terminated on April 23, 2023.
They 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, however, maintained that its design satisfied all requirements for registration.
It relied on a power of attorney dated October 16, 2024, which it said appointed it as a representative of Jigsimur SA Original (PTY), as well as a SAHPRA licence certificate, certificate of registration and documents appointing it as a sales representative in Nigeria.
The company 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 National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control temporary certificate and an affidavit from Jigsimur SA Original.
Following the hearing, the panel directed the parties to file their final written addresses.
On the initial date fixed for ruling, David Ajaba, holding the brief of Anthony George Ikoli (SAN), for the respondent, sought additional time for the filing of the respondent’s 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 identified three principal issues for determination: whether the respondent was a former sales representative of the petitioner; whether the petitioner was the owner of “JIGSIMUR”; and whether the respondent’s registration of the disputed design 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 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 consequently 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 rights were territorial, holding that ownership or protection obtained outside Nigeria could not, by itself, determine rights within the country.
It relied on trademark certificates Nos. 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.
The panel described the evidence as conclusive proof that the name “JIGSIMUR” belonged to the petitioner in Nigeria, citing 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 found that the respondent had copied features of the petitioners’ product in a manner capable of confusing consumers.
The panel held that such conduct was inconsistent with intellectual property principles, particularly as 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 that the respondent’s registration was made in bad faith.
The panel therefore ordered Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited to change the disputed label and bottle industrial design.
It also ordered the company to desist from producing or selling products under Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804 and to remove the name “JIGSIMUR” from the design.
In addition, the panel 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 panel, however, stated that the orders directing the respondent to alter 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.
Muoneke Oluchukwu appeared for the petitioners, while Chijioke Ezeli and George Ikoli & Okagbue represented the respondent.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
