13 March 2025
On Tuesday, January 21, 2025, President William Ruto led a Cabinet meeting at the Kakamega State Lodge, where sweeping reforms were approved. The Cabinet sanctioned the merger of 42 State corporations with related or overlapping functions into 20 consolidated agencies.
The key highlight is the proposed merger of three crucial intellectual property (IP) offices in Kenya— the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO), and the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA). One of the primary objectives of this merger appears to be the establishment of a more streamlined and efficient intellectual property regulatory framework, among other considerations.
The concept of consolidating these institutions has been discussed before, notably in 2013 when the Presidential Task Force on Parastatal Reforms recommended their merger into a single entity. This idea at that time had gained further momentum with the introduction of the Intellectual Property Bill, 2020, which sought to establish the Intellectual Property Office of Kenya (IPOK), tasked with overseeing and harmonizing all matters related to IP protection, enforcement, and regulation.
On one hand, the merger promises several advantages. By consolidating the agencies, Kenya would address overlapping or related mandates and eliminate redundancies, leading to improved operational efficiency. The unified structure would streamline the administration of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and anti-counterfeit initiatives, making it easier for businesses and individuals to navigate the IP landscape. A single entity could provide more coherent policies, better coordination, and a more centralized approach to enforcement, which may bolster Kenya’s position in the global IP arena, attracting more investment and fostering innovation.
However, the proposed merger also raises concerns. Given that each of the current IP offices is established under its own act of Parliament with specific mandates, the consolidation could lead to complications in maintaining the unique focus of each function. We cannot ignore the fact that each institution has individually made significant progress in enhancing efficiency and hence, the transition to a single office may result in disruptions, staffing challenges, and a potential loss of institutional knowledge. Despite these challenges, if implemented successfully, the merger could significantly transform IP practice in Kenya, creating a more efficient and robust system for IP holders and consumers alike.
As we continue to closely monitor developments, we remain eager to see the next steps in the harmonization of Kenya’s IP offices.
