The fierce competition in the local biscuit industry, has reached a state of intense excitement and agitation as two leading players in the country; Twellium Industrial Company Ltd, manufacturers of Mcberry Biscuits and Nutrifoods Ghana Ltd, have locked horns in court over the misuse of their trademarks.
In a series of accusations and counter accusations between the two manufacturers, they finally resolved to settle their disputes in the law court and this promises to be a test case for trademark infringement in Ghana.
Twellium Industrial Company Ltd, has since secured an injunction against Nutrifoods for adopting, and using an identical or confusingly similar name to mimic its Mcberry Breakfast Cereal biscuit brand.
Nutrifoods Ghana Ltd, generated the latest controversy between the companies by using the brand name Royal Breakfast Cereal.
Adelaide Abui Keddey, a justice of the High Court, in granting the motion for interlocutory injunction, was convinced among others that Twellium Industrial, will suffer greater hardship if the application was refused and or dismissed.
The judge, therefore, in her ruling restrained Nutrifoods Ghana Ltd and its assigns, agents, privies etc from producing, distributing, marketing and selling Royal Breakfast Cereal Biscuit until the final determination of the substantive suit.
The production and sale of Royal Breakfast Cereal biscuit by Nutrifoods was seen by industry watchers as a retaliatory measure, following the launch by Twellium of a new biscuit brand called Alpha Cracker with a tagline; “The New King in Town”.
Nutrifoods did not take kindly to the new product’s tagline which in the company’s view is similar to its Royal King Cracker biscuit.
After unsuccessful attempts to stop Mcberry from using the tagline, Nutrifoods mounted an action at the High Court to stop Mcberry from using the tagline.
However, the action suffered a fatal blow as the same was dismissed as unmeritorious.
The launch of the Royal Breakfast Cereal biscuit by Nutrifoods was, therefore, seen by industry observers as a revengeful act.
Though the substantive case is yet to be heard, it is yet to be seen whether the respondents will appeal the ruling by the learned judge.