Sony Corporation v Sony Holdings Limited (Civil Appeal 399 of 2019) [2026] KECA 698 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Sony's appeal failed because fame abroad isn't proof of fame in Kenya - well-known mark status demands concrete local evidence, not reputation or assumption.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned Judge of the High Court erred in upholding, in part, the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing the appellant's opposition to the registration of the respondent's trade marks
- 2.Whether the appellant established the 'well-known mark status' of its SONY mark in Kenya under section 15A of the Trade Marks Act
- 3.Whether the Judge erred, under sections 14(1) and 15A of the Act, in requiring proof of 'actual confusion' rather than the lower standard of 'likelihood of confusion'
Key legal issues
#Scope of a second appeal - whether the Court can re-evaluate facts and evidence
The Court declined to re-evaluate facts, restricting itself to matters of law per the Kenya Breweries v Godfrey Odoyo principle
Counsel for the respondent correctly noted that only points of law are entertainable on a second appeal. The Court adopted the classic statement that it must resist delving into matters of fact unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the entire decision is perverse. No such misdirection was demonstrated on the concurrent findings regarding well-known status and confusion.
Whether SONY is a well-known mark in Kenya under section 15A of the Trade Marks Act
The concurrent findings that the appellant failed to prove well-known status were upheld; the WIPO Joint Recommendations factors (duration, extent and geographical area of use, promotion, degree of recognition, enforcement) required evidence from the appellant
Well-known status is a question of fact requiring proof. The Assistant Registrar and the High Court evaluated the appellant's evidence against the WIPO factors and found it insufficient, the appellant having largely adduced material from foreign jurisdictions without direct evidence of Kenyan market presence. Neither the Court nor the Judge could substitute personal perception of SONY's notoriety for probative evidence.
Whether the Judge erred in requiring 'actual confusion' rather than 'likelihood of confusion' under sections 14 and 15
No misdirection was discerned; the Judge considered the matter against both section 14 and section 15A and the appellant failed to show the higher evidentiary threshold invalidated the decision
The appellant argued that the Judge imported the 'actual confusion' standard of section 15 into a section 14 inquiry requiring only likelihood of confusion. The Court found that the Judge, like the Assistant Registrar, considered the matter against both prisms of section 14 and section 15A and, on a second appeal, the appellant could not show that no reasonable tribunal would have reached the same conclusion on the evidence, particularly absent any evidence of reported confusion despite co-existence of the marks in the market.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law and must accept concurrent findings of fact of the courts below unless it is shown that they considered or failed to consider matters they should not have or should have considered, or that the decision is perverse
- Whether a trade mark is well known in Kenya under section 15A of the Trade Marks Act, and whether a mark is likely to cause confusion under section 14(1), are questions of fact requiring proof by evidence
- A party asserting well-known status of a mark bears the burden of furnishing evidence indicating that the mark is actually well known and recognized in the Kenyan jurisdiction; judicial notice or judicial perception cannot substitute for such evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- First appeal from the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated 5th June 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable provisions on appeals from the High Court (points of law only); no specific constitutional or statutory article is quoted in the judgment
Relief refused
#The appellant's request that the respondent's marks not proceed to registration in all classes (12, 16, 25, 35, 36, 37, 39, 45) on the basis that SONY is well known in Kenya
Concurrent findings of fact by the Assistant Registrar and the High Court that the appellant failed to prove well-known status and likelihood of confusion were not shown to be perverse; the second appeal is confined to matters of law
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
This Court, on a second appeal, confines itself to matters of law unless it is shown that the two courts below considered matters, they should not have considered or failed to consider matters they should have considered or looking at the entire decision, it is perverse.
The questions whether the appellant's trademark SONY is a well-known mark in Kenya and therefore deserving protection under section 15A of the Act is a question of fact.
there has to be evidence furnished … to indicate that the trade mark is actually well known and recognized in the jurisdiction…
Evidently, the learned Judge, as did the Assistant Registrar, considered the matter against both prisms of section 14 and section 15A of the Act, and we are unable to discern any misdirection on the part of the High Court in its evaluation of the evidence present before the Assistant Registrar.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment quotes the High Court as setting aside the Assistant Registrar's decision for marks under 'classes 35, 36, 37 and 39' and later refers to the same as 'classes 35 to 39', an imprecise range description; the narrative also states the Judge found registration in 'classes 35 to 39' would offend section 15(1).
The judgment contains OCR-style typographical errors ('ofiended', 'afirmative', 'difierent', 'suficient'), which may affect verbatim quote-matching against an official text.
The case title is not expressly stated in the judgment text supplied; the parties are identified only as 'the appellant' and 'the respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sony Corporation v Sony Holdings Limited (Civil Appeal 399 of 2019) [2026] KECA 698 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Second appeal from the High Court at Nairobi (F. Tuiyott, J.) - Trade Mark Appeal. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/698/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.