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 under the disputed ‘Jigsimur Label Bottle Design’.
The panel, in a ruling delivered on September 2, 2026, directed the company to remove the name ‘JIGSIMUR’ from Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804, following a petition by Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd and Cleansimure International Ltd.
It also ordered 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 held: ‘The Respondent is hereby ordered to change the label bottle industrial design number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804 titled Jigsimur Label Bottle Design;
‘The Industrial Design number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/5718 titled ‘Cleansimur Health Drink label on bottle design immediately be allowed to proceed for registration;
‘The Respondent shall desist from producing and selling under the industrial Design registration number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804 titled Jigsimur Label Bottle Design;
‘The respondent shall remove the name JIGSIMUR from the design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804;
‘Orders a, c, and d shall be enforceable after the period of 30 calendar days from the date of ruling. Failure to do so shall warrant the Registry to correct the error by expunging the designs from the Register of Industrial Designs.’
The ruling followed a petition dated November 10, 2025, challenging Jigsimur Plus Nigeria Limited’s registration of the disputed design.
Muoneke Paschal Oluchukwu Esq. represented the petitioners, while Chijioke Stanley Ezeli Esq. and George Ikoli and Okagbue represented the respondent. David Ajaba Esq., holding the brief of Anthony George Ikoli, SAN, later appeared for Jigsimur Plus.
The petitioners alleged that Jigsimur Plus was formerly an agent and sales representative of Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd, a South African producer of herbal health drinks, and therefore had no 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 knowing that the design belonged to the petitioners.
According to the petitioners, the registration was made in bad faith and amounted to misrepresentation of proprietorship and a breach of trademark and industrial design principles.
They tendered documents including an authorisation letter from Jigsimur SA Pty Ltd to Cleansimure International Ltd, evidence of prior use and publication of the Jigsimur design, a trademark certificate for ‘JIGSIMUR’, the disputed design registration and documents showing termination of the agency relationship.
The respondent, in a response dated February 17, 2026, denied the allegations, describing the petitioners’ claims as false, misleading and unfounded.
Jigsimur Plus maintained that it was lawfully appointed as the Nigerian representative of Jigsimur SA Original Pty and that the design certificate issued to it was valid and complied with statutory and administrative requirements.
It also argued that the Registry had not been misled and that its registration enjoyed a presumption of regularity.
The respondent alleged that the petition was an attempt by the petitioners to benefit from its goodwill, reputation and market presence and create confusion over the sale and distribution of their ‘Cleansimur’ product.
In support of its case, the respondent tendered a power of attorney from Jigsimur Original Pty, agency and representation documents, a February 13, 2026 letter of exclusive authorisation to the Registrar of Patents and Designs and a sworn affidavit by the South African company’s chief executive officer.
At the April 14, 2026 hearing, conducted under Designs Rule 40 of the Patents and Designs Act, the panel reminded the parties that the Administrative Panel was a first-level alternative dispute resolution mechanism intended to facilitate amicable settlement and avoid prolonged litigation.
The petitioners urged the panel to deregister the respondent’s design, maintaining that they had never authorised Jigsimur Plus to register the ‘Jigsimur Label and Bottle Design’ in Nigeria.
They said their agency relationship with the respondent had been terminated on April 23, 2023, and tendered email correspondence and bills of lading relating to consignments allegedly supplied before the termination.
The respondent maintained that its design met all registration requirements. It relied on an October 16, 2024 power of attorney under which it claimed to have been appointed a representative of Jigsimur SA Original (PTY), as well as the company’s regulatory and registration documents.
After the hearing, the panel directed the parties to file final written addresses.
In determining the petition, the panel identified three issues: whether the respondent was a former sales representative of the petitioner; whether the petitioner was the owner of ‘JIGSIMUR’; and whether the respondent’s design registration 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 evidence including 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.
On ownership, the panel stressed that intellectual property protection and enforcement were territorial and that ownership or protection outside Nigeria could not, by itself, determine rights in Nigeria.
It relied on trademark certificates Numbers 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 the product in Nigeria.
The panel described the evidence as proof of the petitioner’s rights to the ‘JIGSIMUR’ name in Nigeria, citing the Supreme Court decision in Ferodo Ltd v Ibeto Industries Ltd (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 866) 317.
On bad faith, the panel examined the competing labels, bottle designs and trade dress. It concluded that the respondent had adopted features of the petitioners’ product in a manner capable of confusing consumers.
It consequently held that Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/4804 belonged to the petitioner and that the respondent’s registration was made in bad faith.
The panel ordered Jigsimur Plus to change the disputed label and bottle design, remove the name ‘JIGSIMUR’ from it and desist from producing or selling products under the disputed industrial design.
It further directed that Industrial Design Number NG/DS/NT/O/2025/5718, titled ‘Cleansimur Health Drink Label on Bottle Design’, should proceed immediately for registration.
The panel said the orders would become enforceable 30 calendar days after the ruling. It warned that failure to comply would empower the Registry to expunge the disputed design from the Register of Industrial Designs.