Nigerian court orders CAC to deregister KPMG Professional Services
LAGOS, NIGERIA — The Lagos Appeal Court has ordered the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to remove the name of KPMG Professional Services from its register, holding that the title violates the established brand of KPMG Nigeria.
The court also issued a permanent injunction against the firm for infringing the Nigerian Companies and Allied Matters (CAMA) laws.
Landmark ruling protects corporate identity rights
The appellate court overturned a 2005 Federal High Court decision that had dismissed KPMG Nigeria’s challenge, finding no credible evidence of a merger between KPMG and Akintola Williams Deloitte.
Justice Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero emphasized that newspaper clippings cited by the lower court failed to prove a legal merger, stating only binding agreements could validate such claims.
The judgment reaffirmed KPMG Nigeria’s exclusive rights to its name, registered as early as 1969 for audit services and 1990 for tax consulting.
The court criticized the CAC for violating CAMA’s Section 852, which bars registering deceptively similar names without first deregistering existing ones. This sets a precedent for trademark disputes in Nigeria’s corporate sector.
CAC faulted for regulatory failure
The ruling highlighted the CAC’s lapse in approving “KPMG Professional Services” despite KPMG Nigeria’s prior registrations. Furthermore, Justice Bayero cited a legal provision stating that a registrar does not have the right to assign a similar name.
“The Registrar cannot assign a business name already held by another entity. One cannot give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet,” stated the court.
The ruling highlights the importance of the company registry in Nigeria being more responsible when conducting due diligence. By ordering the name to be removed and disallowed for use, the court aims to reduce brand confusion and promote just competition.
The case decision also makes it clear that de facto mergers, such as the partial merger of KPMG Audit, do not override trademark rights based on informal partnerships.
