Justice Nasir Yunus, who rejected the interlocutory application moved by Coca-Cola when the matter came up for ruling, insisted the application conflicted with the natural right of fair hearing and equity against the defendant.
Coca-Cola had dragged the Northern-based beverage manufacturing company to court for perceived impersonation of systematic ribbon devices and trademarks, similar to the global brand, thereby depleting Coca Cola’s market share, especially in the Northern region.
In the application filed by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mark Emordi SAN, the firm prayed that the court should restrain Pop Cola from further parading the systematic ribbon devise labeled on all products.
Mark also sought an order to stop Pop’s advert campaign and display of its brand that is similar to Coca Cola, with a claim that such activity is infringing on his client’s trademark.
The lawyer told the court that should Pop Cola be allowed to continue to trade its products in the Nigerian market, such an act would amount to irreparable damage to Coca Cola brand.
The plaintiff submitted that Pop Cola has confused consumers through the use of a similar systematic ribbon been used by Coca-Cola, adding that the act amounts to an infringement and causing disillusion and needed to be restrained, pending the determination of the substantive matter.
In a counter-argument, counsel to the defendant, Offiong Offiong, SAN, asked the court to discountenance the plaintiff’s application for lacking claims to legal rights been alluded to.
Offiong maintained that the issues between Coca-Cola and Pop Cola are purely a matter of trade dispute, adding that the plaintiff applicant has failed to prove the claims of an infringement on its legal rights.
The court in its ruling stated that Coca Cola in the application for an interlocutory order of the court has failed to show the ingredients for the balance of convenience.
The court presided by Justice Nasir Yunus, further in the ruling, stated that the plaintiff applicant could not establish that irreparable damages will occur, if the court failed to restrain Pop Cola from carrying out its trade, noting that the issue before the court for determination does not revolve around perishable goods.
The court declared that it is of the position that the matter should be exhausted through an accelerated hearing and so ordered. The matter is adjourned to April 25, for a hearing on the substantive suit.
