VeryDarkMan’s Seizure of ‘BLORD’ Brand Raises Legal Questions

The complex trademark battle between activist Martins Vincent Otse (known as VeryDarkMan or VDM) and businessman Linus Williams (known as Blord) has intensified, revealing the intricacies of Nigeria’s intellectual property laws and the challenges of brand protection.

What began as a dispute over Blord’s attempt to trademark “Ratel” has evolved into a strategic counter-move by VDM, who claims to have legally seized ownership of the “BLORD” trademark by filing applications across 43 classes of goods and services.

VDM publicly asserted that he became the legal owner and “founder” of the “BLORD” trademark after finding the registry “empty” when he applied. His claim suggests that registering “BLORD” in all capital letters gives him exclusive rights to the name in multiple categories, including Class 35 (Marketing) and Class 39 (Logistics), which would theoretically prohibit Linus Williams from using the name for his electric vehicle business.

However, official records and Nigerian trademark law present a different reality. Section 13(1) of the Trade Marks Act clearly states that a mark cannot be registered if it is “identical with or so nearly resembling” an existing mark for the same goods or services.

A critical legal fact undermines VDM’s claim: Nigerian law treats wordmarks as case-insensitive, making VDM’s “BLORD” legally identical to the “Blord” filed by Daniel Abugo on January 19, one day before VDM submitted his first application. Abugo’s filing holds priority for Class 9, and the phonetic identity creates a “confusing similarity” that legally blocks VDM’s subsequent filings in overlapping classes.

Additionally, VDM’s assertion that the registry was “empty” overlooks the rights of Blunt Gadgets Limited, a subsidiary of the Blord Group. This company had already filed for “BLORD ELECTRIC CARS & DEVICE” in Classes 9 and 12 in October 2025, establishing a “priority date” that predates VDM’s applications by several months.

Even if VDM’s applications were to proceed through the registration process, Section 7 of the Trade Marks Act protects “vested rights,” ensuring that a later registration cannot interfere with a person who has been continuously using an identical mark from a date prior to the new registration.

To validate his claim, VDM shared a screenshot of a “Notice of Acceptance” from the Nigerian Trademark Registry, showing that his application for “BLORD” in Class 39 (Transport and Logistics) was accepted by the Registrar and scheduled for publication. Official Trademarks Journal records list VDM’s application (NG/TM/O/2026/412338) as a wordmark.

However, trademark registration in Nigeria follows a strict legal process with multiple stages: an availability search, formal application under Section 18, examination for distinctiveness under Sections 9 and 10, publication in the Trade Marks Journal per Section 19, a two-month window for third-party opposition under Section 20, and finally, if all stages are passed, the issuance of a Certificate of Registration under Section 22.

Since VDM’s filings are still in the early stages and face clear conflicts with prior filers, legal experts characterize his claim of full “ownership” as premature and legally incomplete.

The case highlights the increasing importance of intellectual property rights in Nigeria’s business landscape, where personal brands and commercial interests increasingly overlap. It also demonstrates how Nigeria’s trademark system, while structured to protect legitimate business interests, can become a battlefield for personal disputes when wielded strategically.

For businesses operating in Nigeria, the dispute serves as a reminder of the importance of early trademark registration and the need to monitor trademark journals for potentially conflicting applications that could impact established brands.