Did VeryDarkMan Legally Seize ‘BLORD’ Model? – The Whistler Newspaper

The trademark dispute between activist Martins Vincent Otse (VeryDarkMan/VDM) and businessman Linus Williams (Blord) has escalated into a posh battle over model possession. Following a dispute the place Blord tried to trademark “Ratel”, VDM counter-responded by focusing on Blord’s skilled moniker.

VDM claimed to have legally seized the “BLORD” model by submitting in 43 courses, nonetheless, his technique faces many authorized hurdles rooted in statutory limitations and judicial precedents concerning prior use and dangerous religion registration.

Claim

VDM asserted that he’s the authorized proprietor and “founder” of the “BLORD” trademark as a result of the registry was “empty” when he utilized for it throughout 43 courses. He argued that his registration of “BLORD” (all caps) offers him unique rights to the title in classes like Class 35 (Marketing) and Class 39 (Logistics), successfully prohibiting Linus Williams from utilizing the title for his electrical car enterprise.

VDM’s declare implies that the precise casing of his submitting distinguishes it from earlier entries on the registry and that he can legally cease any industrial transportation involving autos branded with that title.

Findings

Official registry data and Nigerian regulation contradict VDM’s assertion. Under Section 13(1) of the Trade Marks Act, a mark can’t be registered whether it is “identical with or so nearly resembling” an present mark for a similar items or providers.

Because Nigerian regulation treats wordmarks as case-insensitive, VDM’s “BLORD” is legally equivalent to the “Blord” filed by Daniel Abugo on January 19, in the future earlier than VDM’s first software.

Abugo’s submitting holds precedence for Class 9, and the phonetic id of the phrases creates a “confusing similarity” that blocks VDM’s subsequent filings in overlapping courses.

“Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or description of goods that is identical with a trade mark belonging to a different proprietor and already on the register in respect of the same goods or description of goods, or that so nearly resembles such a trade mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.”

VDM’s declare to have discovered the registry “empty” ignores the rights of Blunt Gadgets Limited, a subsidiary of the Blord Group. This firm filed for “BLORD ELECTRIC CARS & DEVICE” in Classes 9 and 12 in October 2025, offering them with a “priority date” that predates VDM by a number of months.

Even if VDM’s purposes proceed, Section 7 of the Trade Marks Act protects “vested rights,” guaranteeing {that a} later registration can not intervene with an individual who has been repeatedly utilizing an equivalent mark from a date previous to the brand new registration.

“Nothing on this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered consumer of a registered commerce mark to intervene with or restrain the use by any particular person of a commerce mark equivalent with or almost resembling it in relation to items in relation to which that particular person or a predecessor in title of his has repeatedly used that commerce mark from a date earlier to-

(a) the usage of the first-mentioned commerce mark in relation to these items by the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or
(b) the registration of the first-mentioned commerce mark in respect of these items within the title of the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his, whichever first occurred, or (the place such use is proved) to object to that particular person being placed on the register for that equivalent or almost resembling commerce mark in respect of these items underneath part 13 (2) of this Act.”

In his video, VDM shared a screenshot of a “Notice of Acceptance” from the Nigerian Trademark Registry to validate his declare. This doc signifies that his software for “BLORD” in Class 39 (Transport and Logistics) was formally accepted by the Registrar and slated for publication. Official Trademarks Journal data record VDM’s software (NG/TM/O/2026/412338) as a wordmark.

The authorized course of for registration follows strict phases underneath the Act: an availability search, formal software underneath Section 18, and examination for distinctiveness underneath Sections 9 and 10. If accepted, the mark have to be revealed within the Trade Marks Journal per Section 19, adopted by a two-month window for third-party opposition underneath Section 20. Only if these phases are handed can a Certificate of Registration be issued underneath Section 22. Because VDM’s filings are nonetheless within the early phases and face clear conflicts with prior filers, his declare of full “ownership” is untimely and legally incomplete.

Verdict: FALSE

VDM’s declare that he “owns” the title and may cease Blord from utilizing it’s false. Although he filed paperwork in 43 courses, he’s not the primary to the registry in key classes, and his filings are legally blocked by the prior purposes of Daniel Abugo and Blunt Gadgets Limited underneath the “first-to-file” rule of Section 13.

Because Nigerian regulation ignores case sensitivity and protects established prior use underneath Section 7, VDM’s lack of business historical past with the title makes his emblems unenforceable in opposition to the precise Blord Group.