A media outfit, Bright Light Media Limited has dragged Lotus Bank Limited before a Federal High Court, Lagos, over alleged infringement and passing off of its ‘EID SOUQ’ trademark, demanding N2 billion in damages.
In a suit, Bright Light Media Limited is seeking a declaration that the bank’s use of the ‘EID SOUQ’ mark amounts to passing off its intellectual property as that of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to restrain Lotus Bank, its agents and associates from further using the disputed mark.
In its statement of claim, Bright Light Media alleged that its Managing Director, Mr Hakeem Olatunji, first presented the ‘EID SOUQ’ concept to the bank’s Executive Chairman, Mrs Hajara Adeola, on May 3, 2024.
It said following discussions with the bank, it was requested to incorporate the bank’s name into the concept, leading to the rebranding as ‘LOTUS EID SOUQ FEST’.
According to the plaintiff, an agreement dated May 28, 2024, subsequently engaged it to organise the festival at Muri Okunola Park, Victoria Island, Lagos, on June 8 and 9, 2024.
The company claimed the event was successful and generated goodwill for the bank, adding that the agreement acknowledged its ownership of the distinctive ‘EID SOUQ’ mark.
However, the plaintiff alleged that it became aware in 2026 that Lotus Bank was promoting another event, ‘LOTUS EID SOUQ 2026’, scheduled for May 23 and 24.
The company claimed the bank’s action confused members of the public and created the impression that the event was organised or endorsed by Bright Light Media. Adding that the alleged infringement had caused loss of business, patronage and reputation.
The company is also seeking N2.05 billion as special damages and cost of filing and prosecuting the suit.
At the hearing of the suit on Wednesday, Mr Emmanuel Ochai appeared for the plaintiff while Mr Folabi Kuti (SAN) appeared for the defendant.
Kuti (SAN) informed the court of a preliminary objection filed in opposing the suit.
The senior lawyer also made reference to an earlier case on the subject before the state high court, adding that same case was heard in 2024.
Howeve, plaintiff’s lawyer objected the submissions, and informed the court that the case before the State High court in 2024, is different from what is currently before the Federal High court.
After several arguments and counter arguments, Justice Faji urged counsel to produce the agreement between parties on the subject on the next adjourned date.
The court also urged the defence to make its objection comprehensive enough to enable the court look at the entirety of the matter and reach a decision.
The court consequently, adjourned the matter to February 9, 2027, for hearing of pending applications.
