11/09/2026
When Does Product Packaging Cross the Line from Inspiration to Infringement?
At first glance, many people would simply dismiss it as another chin chin brand trying to compete in the market. But from an intellectual property perspective, the conversation is far more interesting.
The law does not prevent different businesses from manufacturing or selling the same product. Chin chin is a generic snack, and no company has a monopoly over it.
The legal issue lies elsewhere.
The question is whether the overall appearance of one product has been designed in a way that is likely to confuse consumers into believing it originates from, or is connected with, another brand.
A quick comparison of the two packages reveals several similarities:
1. A dominant red and yellow colour scheme.
2. A yellow banner positioned at the upper left corner.
3. Large white lettering with a comparable style.
4.A closely related visual arrangement and overall trade dress.
While these similarities may catch the eye, trademark law goes beyond visual resemblance. The law asks a more practical question:
Would the average consumer, exercising ordinary care, likely believe that both products come from the same source?
That is the test of likelihood of confusion.
It is worth noting that the brand names: MINIMIE and DAMILARE are distinct. Likewise, the words “chin chin” merely describe the product itself and cannot ordinarily be monopolised by any manufacturer.
However, trademarks are not assessed by isolating individual features. Courts examine the overall commercial impression created by the packaging.
This principle was recognised in Ferodo Ltd. v. Ibeto Industries Ltd., where the court emphasized that marks should be considered as a whole when determining whether they are likely to deceive or confuse consumers. Similarly, Section 13(2) of the Nigerian Trade Marks Act prohibits the registration of a mark whose similarity to an earlier trademark is likely to cause confusion or lead the public to assume a commercial connection between the products.
Could a hurried shopper mistakenly purchase DAMILARE believing it to be MINIMIE ?
Perhaps.
But the law does not punish every instance of mistaken identity. Trademark infringement and passing off require more than occasional consumer error. There must be a genuine likelihood that an ordinary purchaser would be misled because of the overall presentation of the product.
Sometimes, the most important intellectual property disputes are not about who made the better product but about whether one product has come too close to another’s identity.
Be legally wise.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT.
💯
