Abstract This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the landmark Nigerian Court of Appeal decision in Peter E. Ventures (Nig.) Ltd v. Gazasonner Ind. Ltd & Anor (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 555) 619. The case represents a seminal authority on industrial design protection under the Nigerian Patents and Designs Act, particularly concerning the legal effect of prior public disclosure or commercial exploitation by a design proprietor before registration. The Appellant, having acquired technology from a Hong Kong company and commercially exploited "275 lamp burner" designs from 1987, subsequently registered the designs in 1994 and sought an interlocutory injunction against alleged infringement. The Court of Appeal unanimously refused the injunction, holding that the Appellant's prior commercial activities deprived it of the legal right of exclusiveness conferred by registration. This paper examines the statutory framework under the Patents and Designs Act, critiques the court's application of the American Cyanamid principles for interlocutory injunctions, and analyzes the decision's implications for intellectual property strategy in Nigeria. The paper argues that while the decision correctly interprets statutory novelty requirements, it creates significant practical challenges for design proprietors regarding the timing of registration relative to commercial exploitation. Comparative analysis with subsequent cases, including Densy Industries (Nig) Ltd v. Uzokwe (1999) and West African Cotton Company Limited v. Hozelock Exel (2020), demonstrates the enduring relevance of this decision. The paper concludes with recommendations for legal reform and practical guidance for intellectual property practitioners in Nigeria, but particularly, clients should be properly guided on conducting novelty searches, drafting pleadings carefully, consider invalidity counterclaims, and seek security for costs.
Udeoji et al. (2026) studied this question.