Story By: Nii Okpoti Odamtten / Muhammed Faisal Mustapha
The Chief Executive Officer of Asiedu Amega Herbal Bitters, Mr. Albert Asiedu Boadu, has commenced legal action at the High Court in Accra against Original Amega Herbal Bitters Limited and its proprietor, Mr. Kojo Boadu, in a high stakes trademark dispute over the use and ownership of the name “AMEGA.”
The suit, filed at the High Court of Justice, Greater Accra Region, alleges trademark infringement, passing off, fraud, and unfair competition, with the plaintiff claiming that the defendants’ actions have caused significant financial loss, reputational damage, and widespread consumer confusion.
At the centre of the legal battle is the contested trademark “AMEGA,” which Mr. Asiedu Boadu insists he lawfully conceived, developed, and used long before the defendants began marketing a similar product.
“The plaintiff is the originator, lawful user, and beneficial owner of the trademark ‘AMEGA,’ which has acquired goodwill and distinctiveness through years of consistent commercial use,” the statement of claim asserts.
According to court documents, Mr. Asiedu Boadu has, over several years, branded, marketed, and distributed Dr. Asiedu Amega Herbal Bitters across parts of the Greater Accra and Eastern Regions, building a recognizable product identity in the herbal medicine market.
The plaintiff maintains that his product was already undergoing formal registration processes with the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) and the Trademark Registry at the time the defendants allegedly moved to appropriate the name.
“At no point did the plaintiff license, assign, or consent to the use of the ‘AMEGA’ name by the defendants for any product whatsoever,” the court filings emphasize.
The suit reveals that the dispute has its roots in a previous commercial relationship between the parties. Mr. Kojo Boadu, named as the second defendant, allegedly supplied water to the plaintiff and also purchased herbal bitters from him for resale.
However, the relationship reportedly deteriorated after the plaintiff raised concerns about contaminated water supplies, leading to a breakdown in trust and cooperation.
Following the fallout, the plaintiff alleges that the second defendant proposed relocating production to his own premises and redesigning the product’s label proposals that were firmly rejected.
“Subsequent events suggest that these proposals were a prelude to an unlawful attempt to take over the plaintiff’s brand identity,” the statement of claim contends.
Mr. Asiedu Boadu further alleges that, after the breakdown in relations, the second defendant took possession of a sample product label without authorization.
The plaintiff claims he was later misled with assertions that the ‘AMEGA’ name had already been registered by third parties at the FDA claims he says were false.
Independent checks by the plaintiff allegedly revealed that Mr. Kojo Boadu himself was attempting to alter or amend FDA records connected to Dr. Asiedu Amega Herbal Bitters.
“The defendants’ actions were calculated to misrepresent regulatory facts and create the false impression of lawful ownership,” the plaintiff alleges.
According to the suit, the defendants subsequently began producing and marketing “Original Amega Herbal Bitters,” deploying similar bottle sizes, colour schemes, packaging styles, and branding elements closely resembling the plaintiff’s product.
Billboards, promotional materials, and market activations were allegedly rolled out nationwide, leading many consumers to believe they were purchasing the plaintiff’s product.
“The resemblance was not coincidental but deliberate, designed to pass off the defendants’ goods as those of the plaintiff,” the pleadings argue.
The case file details a series of interventions by law enforcement and regulatory agencies, including product seizures, arrests, and investigations by the FDA and National Security.
These actions reportedly followed complaints from customers who claimed they had unknowingly purchased the defendants’ product under the belief that it was the original Dr. Asiedu Amega Herbal Bitters.
The plaintiff also accuses the defendants of using media advertisements, bloggers, promotional floats, branded apparel, and public commentary to market their product while allegedly making derogatory claims about his brand.
A central pillar of the lawsuit is the allegation that the defendants fraudulently registered the ‘AMEGA’ trademark despite being fully aware that the plaintiff’s registration process was already underway.
“The defendants acted in bad faith, with full knowledge of the plaintiff’s prior rights and pending registrations,” the suit states.
Mr. Asiedu Boadu is asking the court to grant several reliefs, including:
° A declaration that “AMEGA” is the lawful trademark of Asiedu Amega Herbal Bitters
° An order declaring any trademark registration by the defendants null and void
° A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using the name “AMEGA” in any form
° An order compelling the withdrawal of all products, advertisements, and promotional materials bearing the name.
° An award of costs, including legal fees, and any further relief the court deems appropriate.
The lead counsel for the suit is Benard Kofi Essibuah Esq of Agya Asamani legal Consult.
As at the time of filing this report, the defendants had been duly served and are expected to enter appearance within the period prescribed by law. The case is yet to be heard.
