--- title: "Kenyan Trade Mark Judgment: The Bix Family" description: "The recent decision of the Kenyan High Court in the case of Weetabix Limited v Manji Food Industries Ltd is noteworthy." image: https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Kenya.jpeg canonical: https://spoor.com/zh/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/ url: https://spoor.getmd.ai/zh/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/.md last_converted: 2026-10-31T06:31:38.745Z --- ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@graph": [ { "@type": "Article", "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#article", "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/" }, "author": { "name": "Spoor & Fisher", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/person/7dad7b9bcdd00617832fbe66d90d9c29" }, "headline": "Kenyan Trade Mark Judgment: The Bix Family", "datePublished": "2015-03-13T05:27:33+00:00", "dateModified": "2024-12-16T19:50:25+00:00", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/" }, "wordCount": 633, "commentCount": 0, "publisher": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#organization" }, "image": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#primaryimage" }, "thumbnailUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Kenya.jpeg", "articleSection": [ "News Article" ], "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "potentialAction": [ { "@type": "CommentAction", "name": "Comment", "target": [ "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#respond" ] } ] }, { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/", "url": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/", "name": "Kenyan Trade Mark Judgment: The Bix Family", "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#website" }, "primaryImageOfPage": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#primaryimage" }, "image": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#primaryimage" }, "thumbnailUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Kenya.jpeg", "datePublished": "2015-03-13T05:27:33+00:00", "dateModified": "2024-12-16T19:50:25+00:00", "description": "The recent decision of the Kenyan High Court in the case of Weetabix Limited v Manji Food Industries Ltd is noteworthy.", "breadcrumb": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#breadcrumb" }, "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "potentialAction": [ { "@type": "ReadAction", "target": [ "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/" ] } ] }, { "@type": "ImageObject", "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#primaryimage", "url": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Kenya.jpeg", "contentUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Kenya.jpeg", "width": 1400, "height": 250, "caption": "nairobi 014." }, { "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "@id": "https://spoor.com/kenyan-trade-mark-judgment-the-bix-family/#breadcrumb", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://spoor.com/" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Kenyan Trade Mark Judgment: The Bix Family" } ] }, { "@type": "WebSite", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#website", "url": "https://spoor.com/", "name": "Spoor & Fisher", "description": "", "publisher": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#organization" }, "potentialAction": [ { "@type": "SearchAction", "target": { "@type": "EntryPoint", "urlTemplate": "https://spoor.com/?s={search_term_string}" }, "query-input": { "@type": "PropertyValueSpecification", "valueRequired": true, "valueName": "search_term_string" } } ], "inLanguage": "zh-Hans" }, { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#organization", "name": "Spoor & Fisher", "url": "https://spoor.com/", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/logo/image/", "url": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/200210-SP-Logo_RGB-01-screen-scaled.jpg", "contentUrl": "https://spoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/200210-SP-Logo_RGB-01-screen-scaled.jpg", "width": 2560, "height": 813, "caption": "Spoor & Fisher" }, "image": { "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/logo/image/" }, "sameAs": [ "https://www.facebook.com/spoorfisher/", "https://x.com/spoorfisher" ] }, { "@type": "Person", "@id": "https://spoor.com/#/schema/person/7dad7b9bcdd00617832fbe66d90d9c29", "name": "Spoor & Fisher", "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "inLanguage": "zh-Hans", "@id": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c4170b7e7d52e6175f9816363d8719ca0de7acdec5fead0211250412726afcf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g", "url": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c4170b7e7d52e6175f9816363d8719ca0de7acdec5fead0211250412726afcf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g", "contentUrl": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c4170b7e7d52e6175f9816363d8719ca0de7acdec5fead0211250412726afcf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g", "caption": "Spoor & Fisher" } } ] } ``` [家](https://spoor.com) › [知识中心](https://spoor.com/knowledge-centre/) › [法律更新/](https://spoor.com/zh/knowledge-centre/legal-updates/) › 肯尼亚商标判决：Bix 家族 # 肯尼亚商标判决：Bix 家族 斯普尔和费舍尔 - 13 3 月 2015 ### 肯尼亚高等法院最近在 Weetabix Limited v Manji Food Industries Ltd 一案中的裁决值得注意。 首先，商标判决在肯尼亚很少见。其次，因为它涉及一系列问题——混淆的可能性、商标系列、驰名商标和假冒。第三，因为法院设法做出了一个决定，虽然不是不合理，但在某些人看来可能有点奇怪。 Weetabix 已注册了许多谷物商标，包括 Weetabix、Oatibix、Bananabix、Fruitabix 和 Chocobix。它似乎也注册了“-bix”。它已广泛使用这些标记多年。 Manji以Multibix商标出售谷物。它提交了注册申请，但被 Weetabix 成功驳回，注册服务商认为存在混淆的可能性。当 Manji 继续销售其产品时，Weetabix 以商标侵权和假冒为由向高等法院提出禁令。 法院发现了 Weetabix，并得出了一些有趣的发现。它不同意在商标申请失败后 Manji 继续销售其产品的事实：“理想的情况是，被告在上述裁决送达后立即停止使用 Multibix 商标的所有交易行为……被告，无视上述注册商的裁决，继续照常营业。 法院裁定，注册官先前的裁决处理了此事：“在被告的 Multibix 是否侵犯原告产品 Weetabix 的问题上，存在不容反悔的问题……商标注册官是商标问题的专家。 ' 应用 INTA 关于商标系列的指导方针，法院认为 Weetabix 已经“建立了一系列明显的商标，具有可识别和共同的‘-bix’特征，特别是在将其用作后缀时。”法院将其称为“Bix 家族”。 关于 Weetabix 是否符合该法第 15 条规定的“驰名商标”的问题，法院认定确实如此，并评论说注册官认定“Weetabix 在肯尼亚非常有名”。 '法院表示，这一裁决认定其他任何人使用该商标“或其任何部分”都是非法的。 最后在假冒问题上，法院认为符合商誉、虚假陈述和损害的要求：“这两个商标之间的错误关系是消费者在购买商品时无法从脑海中抹去的一种问题。' 因此，禁令被授予，这并没有太大争议。然而，一家公司仅仅因为其申请被拒绝就被期望停止使用该商标是不寻常的。难道它不希望高等法院法官可能会与商标听证官有所不同，因为它无疑有权这样做。简而言之，法院错误地认定书记官长的裁决（在异议事项中）对法院具有约束力。值得一提的是，法院在暗示商标可以仅仅因为“相当知名”而被视为“知名”方面也至少是笨拙的。在这方面，判决中没有足够的细节来表达是否有理由证明 Weetabix 商标在肯尼亚是知名的。很遗憾，因为这样的分析本来可以作为有用的先例。 尽管法院的推理存在明显缺陷，但该案再次证明了在肯尼亚注册商标的必要性，包括商标本身可能被认为具有显着性的部分。 本文首次发表于 2015 年 4 月版的《知识产权管理》。