'What Is In A Name?'
Spira Tlhankane | Monday May 25, 2020 12:48
While one was born with the name, the other cultivated its goodwill over the last five years, but neither one is willing to let it go without a fight. One is bearer of goodwill of the ‘brand name’ that she put value into and the other is prepared to go commercial with her own name, but neither one has claim to the trademark, according to the Companies and Intellectual Property Authority (CIPA).
It was perhaps William Shakespeare’s love tragedy that pondered in cavalier fashion with one of his most famous quotes that would in time set the scene for both the young women who are ready to lawyer up for brand name, ‘Amantle Brown’.
In a defying act of the Shakespearean quote that suggests generic names do not hold worth or meaning, both Amantle’s clearly do not think so, and similarly an eight-year-old Campaignbrief.com report that William Shakespeare’s brand was estimated to be worth $600 million that year, according to a US valuation firm, Brand Finance, study.
What they can agree on with Shakespeare though is that names simply act as labels to distinguish one thing or person from the other and this for the young women is where the battle begins.
This has been quite evident in the cyber bullying scandal between songster, Amantle Ntshole, and another young Motswana woman born as Amantle Brown that spiralled into a trademark war. Showtime has established that both parties do not have industrial property rights to the brand ‘Amantle Brown’ now that the living Amantle Brown is pursuing a profitable career in event emceeing (MC). In Botswana, industrial property rights are protected through the Industrial Property Act (2010) and rights covered under this Act include trademarks, patents, utility models, industrial designs, geographical indications, traditional knowledge and integrated circuits.
CIPA, which the ‘Amantle Brown’ dispute would naturally be their turf, has revealed that they do not recognise both Ntshole and Brown because they have not registered the ‘Amantle Brown’ trademark.
A trademark is a sign that differentiates the goods or services of one business from those of the other. A trademark may consist of words, logos, letters, numerals, slogans, devices or any combination thereof.
CIPA spokesperson, Marietta Magashula told Showtime that both Amantle Brown the songster and Amantle Brown, who trades as an MC, have not registered a trademark. Both Ntshole and Brown told The Voice Newspaper in a live Facebook broadcast on Saturday that they have registered the trademark, but the information coming from CIPA reveals that they were not being truthful.
“When I checked yesterday (Friday) there was no record of any registration. Unless they submitted during the day yesterday in which case the brand would still not be registered because it takes over three months to register a brand,” Magashula revealed.
She also said that even if they had registered a trademark, CIPA would protect only the symbol and design of the trademark.
“We would not give them exclusive rights to the words Amantle Brown, because they did not invent the words; they are commonly used words,” Magashula added.
She further revealed that when one registers a trademark with everyday language they do what is called a ‘disclaimer’, which is when one agrees that they do not have exclusive rights to the words. “The trademark McDonald's for instance does not have exclusive rights to the word McDonald's, but they have exclusive rights to the design of their trademark,” she said.
CIPA is mandated to register businesses and protect intellectual property rights, but it remains to be seen whether the failure to police a trademark by both Ntshole and Brown can lead to loss of trademark rights. Contacted for comment, Brown said she was no longer in a position to talk about the brand name anymore. “I am deciding to make peace with Ntshole regarding this issue,” she said briefly.
Efforts to speak with Ntshole were futile as her mobile phone was off. But in an earlier interview with Showtime, Ntshole had revealed that she would like to sit down with Brown and settle the trademark issue and bullying allegations.
While CIPA has clarified that the Sapelo singer will not stand to gain from the very best brand protections it is an even bigger shock that Ntshole attempted to prevent the legitimate name holder from using her own name on social media.
Initially, when she broke into the music scene, Ntshole was trading as Amantle BW before changing it to Amantle Brown just before her big break in 2016.
According to the real Brown’s allegations, the award-winning singer started bullying her in 2015, which is around the same time when she switched from Amantle BW to ‘Amantle Brown’.
Even during her My Star days, Ntshole was not using the ‘Amantle Brown’ brand name. It remains to be seen whether she will prove genuine use of the brand ‘Amantle Brown’ with CIPA, even though she has not trademarked it.
For Ntshole, maybe because this Amantle Brown brand is now her occupation and first point of recognition from her fans, known as Brownies, it will be interesting to see how far she will go to protect it.
Besides the ‘Amantle Brown’ saga, there have been other brand name cases before, such as that of the Real Magosi vs Magosi name in the past, which battle eventually died along with the motswako groups’ musical careers. In the US, Jay-Z and Beyoncé are in a legal battle to trademark daughter Blue Ivy’s name. This came after a lifestyle event planning business owner named Veronica Morales filed opposition to their suit, claiming she had previously applied for the trademark ‘Blue Ivy’, the name of her company, in 2012.
Jay-Z and Beyoncé wanted to trademark their seven-year-old daughter’s full name because they did not want it to be confused with the boutique. The battles of intellectual property rights in history are endless. So, what is in a name? Everything, if the ‘Amantle Brown’ brand name and trademark casualties in time are anything to go by.