Two iron sheet manufacturing firms are locked in a court battle over trademarks and branding, with Royal Mabati Factory Ltd accusing rival Vintage Mabati Mills Ltd of using marks and designs similar to its registered intellectual property.
In the suit filed in the High Court in Nairobi, Royal Mabati accuses its four former consultants of using knowledge gained while working with the company to run a rival business.
Royal Mabati is seeking Sh50 million in special damages, general and punitive damages, a permanent injunction against the alleged infringement, an account of profits, and the delivery and destruction of infringing roofing products.
The company says the four individual defendants—Isaac Karanja, Samson Waweru, John Gatharu and Victor Koech— had access to its trade secrets and proprietary information before incorporating Vintage Mabati and allegedly adopting substantially similar trademarks, colours, logos and branding.
Pending determination of the suit, the court has temporarily barred Vintage and the four individuals from using Royal Mabati’s registered marks or branding so nearly resembling the registered marks as to be likely to deceive or confuse customers.
The court order followed an application in which Royal Mabati sought protection for “Royal Bricktile”, “Royal Zeetile”, “Royal Longtile”, “Royal Box Profile” and “Royal Mabati Factory” brands, together with related industrial designs.
The company also wanted Vintage’s M-Pesa Paybill and bank account frozen, profits allegedly earned from infringement accounted for, and offending roofing products surrendered for destruction.
Royal Mabati told the court that it had traded since 2005 and invested heavily in building goodwill around its brands.
According to the company, the defendants began manufacturing, advertising and selling competing products using substantially similar trademarks, logos, colours and branding.
Royal Mabati said it issued cease-and-desist demands and that the defendants undertook to change their branding, but the alleged infringement continued, “causing harm which the plaintiff maintains cannot be adequately compensated by damages”.
However, Vintage and the four defendants denied deliberate infringement, passing off and unlawful appropriation of Royal Mabati’s trademarks, designs or goodwill.
They said Vintage operates independently and any resemblance resulted inadvertently from common terminology and branding concepts used in the roofing industry.
The defendants said they acted in good faith after receiving Royal Mabati’s demand by removing the disputed branding and starting a rebranding exercise.
They challenged the validity and renewal of some Royal Mabati trademarks and said there was no independent evidence of actual consumer confusion, deception or diversion.
The defendants also argued that freezing their accounts would cripple the business and prematurely determine the dispute before trial.
They argued there was no evidence of asset dissipation to justify freezing the accounts.
“Without making definitive findings on infringement at this stage, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has demonstrated an identifiable proprietary interest deserving protection pending trial,” Justice Peter Mulwa said.
But the ruling did not finally determine whether Vintage infringed the trademarks or passed off its products as those of Royal Mabati. The court said those questions could only be conclusively determined after examining the evidence at trial.
The court also rejected the request to freeze Vintage’s operating accounts. The court said a freezing order is an extraordinary remedy intended to prevent assets being moved or hidden to defeat a future judgment.
“Freezing the first defendant’s (Vintage Mabati) operational accounts at this stage would be disproportionate and may effectively cripple its business before liability is established,” the court said.
It also refused to order immediate accounting of profits or destruction of the disputed products, saying those remedies would prematurely decide substantive issues before a full hearing. The case is slated for mention on September 29, 2026.
