CAC Orders Firm To Change Name Over Trademark Conflict With KPMG

The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) has ordered a institution operating nether the name, KPMG Advisory Services, to alteration its sanction wrong six weeks owed to similarities with KPMG Nigeria, a well-known nonrecreational services firm.

The CAC, which gave the directive successful a missive dated September 19, 2025 and signed connected behalf of its Registrar General by Chidimma Laureen Nwite, stated that the concern sanction KPMG Advisory Services (BN 2145583), registered connected October 11, 2010, was mistakenly approved contempt the anterior registration of KPMG Nigeria.

The Commission besides maintained that this directive was issued successful accordance with Section 30(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, which prohibits the registration of names that are identical oregon confusingly akin to those of existing entities.

The CAC further warned successful the missive that nonaccomplishment to comply wrong the stipulated timeframe would compel the CAC to instrumentality indispensable enforcement action.

A transcript of the missive was besides sent to the instrumentality steadfast Idowu Sofola & Co. for grounds purposes.

It volition beryllium recalled that the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal had nullified the CAC’s registration of the concern sanction “KPMG Professional Services” connected July 10, 2025, aft a lengthy ineligible conflict spanning implicit 2 decades.

The unanimous decision, delivered by Justice Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero, firmly supported KPMG Nigeria, marking a important triumph successful protecting Nigeria’s firm marque identity.

The appellate tribunal granted each 4 reliefs sought by KPMG Nigeria against the CAC (first Respondent) and KPMG Professional Services (second Respondent).

The tribunal had held successful its ruling that the registration of the 2nd Respondent’s sanction was improper and misleading nether Section 662(1)(d) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 1990, present updated to Section 852 of CAMA 2020.

This conception prohibits the registration of names that are identical oregon deceptively akin to existing ones.

The ineligible quality started successful 2002 erstwhile KPMG Nigeria, which includes its well-established audit, tax, and consulting divisions, filed an originating summons challenging the CAC’s determination to registry a caller entity named “KPMG Professional Services.”

KPMG Nigeria had argued that the recently registered sanction was deceptively akin and could mislead the public, infringing upon its long-established individuality and reputation.

The Federal High Court successful Lagos had dismissed the suit successful 2005, arguing that an alleged merger betwixt KPMG Nigeria and Akintola Williams Deloitte meant the plaintiff could nary longer asseverate rights to the KPMG name.

The Federal High Court besides upheld a counterclaim from the 2nd Respondent, ordering KPMG Nigeria’s sanction to beryllium struck disconnected the register.

However, the Court of Appeal cautiously examined this reasoning, classifying the grounds of a merger arsenic inadequate and unsubstantiated.

Justice Bayero noted that the little court’s sole ground for its decision was paper articles and insufficient impervious of a ineligible merger. The appellate tribunal recovered nary grounds suggesting that KPMG Nigeria had ceased to beryllium oregon relinquished its rights to the name.

“Only a merger statement tin find the quality and scope of the purported merger. What exists here, astatine best, is simply a functional collaboration oregon partial merger of lone 1 component, KPMG Audit, and adjacent that is not proven by binding ineligible documents,” Justice Bayero stated successful the judgment.

The appellate tribunal highlighted KPMG Nigeria’s humanities precedence, noting that it was the archetypal to registry its concern entities, including KPMG Audit (1969), KPMG Tax Consultants (1990), and KPMG Consulting.

The tribunal besides criticised the CAC for acting contrary to CAMA by allowing a akin sanction to beryllium registered without removing the earlier existing names from the registry.

“The Registrar cannot delegate a concern sanction already held by different entity. One cannot springiness what 1 does not person — ‘nemo dat quod non habet,” the tribunal held.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal declared that the 2nd Respondent, KPMG Professional Services, was not entitled to beryllium registered nether that name, ordering the CAC to instantly region the Respondent from its registry and cancel the certificate it had issued.

The tribunal further issued a perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from conducting immoderate concern utilizing the contested sanction and directed an enquiry into damages relating to profits earned nether that name.

The counterclaim of the 2nd Respondent was dismissed entirely.

The Court of Appeal’s determination reversed the Federal High Court’s earlier ruling successful Suit No. FHC/L/CS/776/2002, robustly reaffirmed the primacy of statutory extortion for existing concern names...