Attorneys caution entertainers over trademark protection

Attorneys are warning members of the entertainment industry to ensure their brands, trademarks and other intellectual property are properly protected, saying the recent dispute over the Killamanjaro brand should serve as a reminder of the importance of securing legal rights.

The caution comes amid recent claims by selector Ricky Trooper that he owns the Killamanjaro trademark, prompting questions about the legal ownership of one of Jamaica’s best-known sound system brands. While the matter has generated public discussion, attorneys Grace Lindo and Ewan Simpson say trademark registration, company incorporation and brand ownership are legal issues that depend on the facts, evidence and applicable law.

Ricky Trooper, whose given name is Garfield McKoy, recently claimed ownership of the Killamanjaro trademark, stating that he has licensing rights in more than 150 countries and intends to issue cease-and-desist notices prohibiting others from using the name. Company records from the Companies Office of Jamaica show that Killamanjaro Sound System Company Limited, with its core business activity listed as “other recreational activities n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified)”, was incorporated on June 8, 2026. The records list Garfield McKoy as the company’s sole director and shareholder.

McKoy, a well-known sound system selector, began performing from an early age with renowned systems, including Killamanjaro Sound System, before later founding his own sound, Sound Trooper. Noel ‘Papa Jaro’ Harper, however, has long been recognised as the owner and founder of Killamanjaro Sound, creating it in 1969. Although McKoy was a former selector on the sound, he has never publicly been known as a co-founder or part-owner.

Lindo, a corporate and intellectual property lawyer of Lindo Legal, who has been in practice for close to 20 years, said the matter should serve as a cautionary tale for those developing brands with others.

“It is a warning somewhat to persons who are in that field that in developing a brand with others, it is important to take stock of who owns what,” she said.

Lindo stressed that she was speaking generally and was not making specific pronouncements without having all the necessary information. She noted that filing for a trademark does not automatically confer ownership rights.

“That is a commonly seen issue in the intellectual property world as people develop these tangible assets. What Ricky Trooper seems to have done is secure property rights, and this is treated almost like real estate, by going ahead and registering or filing an application for the trademark. I use the term ‘filing’ because who knows if he will be given trademark rights. It is not a given. The fact that he has filed does not mean that he will be automatically given rights,” she said.

“There are processes in Jamaica similar to those worldwide, where people can file an application to oppose the rights or to oppose the registration. In most jurisdictions, there is a possibility for an objection to be filed. What this individual may have done is gone ahead and filed property rights so that he can own this intangible asset, but there are always avenues for an opposition in respect of that, and it’s for the courts or tribunal to decide who owns the property rights,” she added.

Lindo also emphasised that incorporating a company does not, by itself, create intellectual property rights.

“The name of a company is not a property right at all. It is not an intangible that you own. But in certain instances where there is no other evidence, it can go to show first use, if anything, if you actually trade under the company name.”

Lindo said that while a dispute may appear straightforward, legal ownership ultimately depends on the evidence and the history of the parties’ business relationship.

Simpson, an attorney with more than 21 years of experience in intellectual property, cyber, contract and business law, and chairman of the Jamaica Reggae Industry Association, said that while someone may register a trademark or incorporate a company connected to an existing brand without the founder’s permission, such registration can still be challenged or invalidated.

“The short answer is yes. Usually, registrations can be challenged or invalidated if done in bad faith (particularly if done speculatively, or without any real connection to or ownership of the mark) or if it is likely to cause confusion by being identical or confusingly similar to a mark already existing in use, whether the existing mark be registered or not,” said Simpson.