The Legal Status of Stage Names in Nigeria: First Use vs. First Filing Under the Trade Marks Act.

In the Nigerian entertainment industry, commercial success is increasingly driven not merely by creative output but by the strength of legal protection accorded to one’s brand assets. Among these assets, stage names, often assumed to be mere artistic expressions , are, in fact, one of the most valuable forms of intellectual property. 

Yet, a critical legal misconception persists: that popularity equals ownership. Under Nigerian law, this presumption is incorrect. 



 
Ownership Arises from Registration, Not Reputation The 

Trade Marks Act (1965, Cap T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004)

 adopts a first-to-file regime. 

Section 2 of the Act expressly defines a registrable mark as any name, label, or device capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one entity from another. Importantly, the Act does not confer automatic rights upon mere prior use or notoriety, as obtainable under common law passing off in some jurisdictions.

Accordingly: 


An artist may achieve widespread recognition under a stage name, yet another party who files for registration first acquires superior legal rights to that name, even against the original user. 



This position has been affirmed in several disputes across various sectors, where courts have held that registration supersedes public association, save where a claimant can prove substantial goodwill and deception under the tort of passing off, a costly, burdensome, and uncertain route. 



Commercial Implications for Artists and Creators

 
The entertainment economy has evolved beyond live performances and streaming revenues. 

A stage name now operates as: 
● A 

 used across merchandise, endorsements, publishing rights, and digital platforms; 

● A 

 in branding, franchising, and corporate partnerships; 

● 

, capable of litigation or licensing. 

It is therefore unsurprising that leading Nigerian artists such as 

Wizkid (Ayodeji Balogun), Davido (David Adeleke), and Burna Boy (Damini Ogulu)

 took early steps to formally register and secure their stage names in multiple jurisdictions. By doing so, they transitioned their identity from persona to property. 



Why Delay is Legally and Financially Risky

 
Failure to register a stage name exposes an artist or content creator to the following risks: 

1. 

Hijacking or speculative filings by third parties

Inability to enforce rights against counterfeit merchandise or impersonation 

Loss of control over licensing and royalty negotiations

, as legal ownership becomes ambiguous. 

In an era where digital identity is monetized at scale, brand control is no longer optional, it is a strategic imperative. 



 
A stage name is not an informal alias, It is intellectual property, capable of accruing significant commercial value. 

However, its enforceability is only as strong as the legal framework protecting it. Popularity may command attention, but registration commands authority.


The Legal Status of Stage Names in Nigeria

Demurrage in the Nigerian Maritime Industry: A contractual obligation or a Statutory recognition?

Demurrage remains one of the most contentious financial liabilities within the Nigerian maritime industry. Despite its widespread application by shipping companies, terminal operators, and logistics providers, there remains considerable misunderstanding as to its legal foundation. Many stakeholders in the Nigerian Maritime industry have fallen victim to the demurrage scam! Ranging from Shippers to Clearing and Forwarding Agents, Truckers up to the man on the streets of Apapa and Tincan looking for his daily bread while sourcing for clients This article examines demurrage as a contractual construct, its treatment under Nigerian legislation, and its judicial enforcement both against private entities and state actors.


Demurrage refers to the agreed monetary compensation payable by a contracting party who exceeds the stipulated laytime or free period for loading, unloading, or returning a vessel or container. It functions as liquidated damages for delay, enforceable strictly on the basis of contractual consent. It is not a statutory fine nor a regulatory levy. In legal theory and practice, demurrage does not arise automatically, it must be expressly incorporated into a contract of carriage, charter party, haulage agreement, or container lease arrangement.



DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEMURRAGE AND MARITIME CLAIMS


A maritime claim encompasses a broad spectrum of disputes arising out of commercial maritime activities, including cargo damage, charter party breaches, freight recovery, towage, salvage, and similar operations. Demurrage constitutes only one specific species of maritime claim, arising solely from contractual default as to time performance. Accordingly, while demurrage is treated as a maritime claim, the converse does not apply; not all maritime claims amount to demurrage.



STATUTORY RECOGNITION UNDER THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION ACT CAP A5 LFN 2004


The Admiralty Jurisdiction Act Cap A5 LFN 2004 does not define demurrage. However, Section 2(3)(f) expressly recognizes “claims for dead freight, demurrage or dispatch money” as falling within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, being the competent court of admiralty. This statutory reference confirms two legal positions: 1. Demurrage is contractually grounded rather than legislatively imposed, and 2. Its enforcement is judicially cognisable as a maritime claim. The Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC), by virtue of its regulatory mandate, exercises supervisory control over the reasonableness of demurrage practices imposed by terminal operators and shipping lines.



JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE CONTRACTUAL STATUS OF DEMURRAGE



● Messrs N.V. Scheep v. M.V. “S. Araz” (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 622 The court held that demurrage constitutes liquidated damages, accruing automatically upon expiration of laytime stipulated under the contract of carriage. No further proof of loss is required once delay is established. 

● Nigerian Ports Authority v. Panalpina World Transport (Nig.) Ltd (1974) 1 NMLR 82 The Supreme Court affirmed that courts will not interfere with or rewrite commercial agreements. Where demurrage terms are embedded within the contractual or procedural documentation governing port usage, a party who avails itself of such services is deemed bound. 

● Nigerian Shippers’ Council v. APM Terminals Limited & Ors (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1490) 377 The Federal High Court upheld the enforceability of demurrage but subject to regulatory oversight against arbitrariness. The Nigerian Shippers’ Council was affirmed as competent to prescribe standards for equitable demurrage practices. 



DEMURRAGE AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: LIABILITY OF STATE ACTORS

 
A pertinent question is whether government agencies involved in port operations or logistics may evade liability for demurrage or related contractual breaches by invoking sovereign immunity. In National American Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 597 F.2d 314 (2d Cir. 1979), the Federal Republic of Nigeria entered into a commercial transaction with a private entity and was sued in the United States for breach. Nigeria contended that it was immune from suit on the grounds of sovereignty.

The United States Court of Appeals rejected this defence, applying the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity. The court held that where a sovereign state engages in commercial transactions, it is subject to the same liabilities as private merchants and cannot claim immunity in respect of contractual obligations. This principle is equally applicable within the Nigerian legal framework. Government agencies acting in a commercial capacity such as port authorities or customs operations, cannot invoke sovereign immunity to escape liability for demurrage where they have assumed contractual obligations.




Demurrage under Nigerian law is: 
● A contractual obligation, not a statutory imposition
● Recognised by statute only to the extent of jurisdictional categorization as a maritime claim
● Enforceable upon proof of agreement and delay, without proof of actual loss 
● Regulated to prevent excess, particularly through the Nigerian Shippers’ Council 
● Binding upon both private and state actors, where they participate in maritime commerce. 

Stakeholders are therefore advised to scrutinize contractual documentation, including bills of lading, haulage agreements, delivery orders, and terminal procedures prior to taking responsibility for cargo or equipment. Liability for demurrage is avoidable where contractual assent is withheld or conditions are negotiated.

Blog Posts

The Legal Status of Stage Names in Nigeria

Demurrage in the Nigerian Maritime Industry