A recent VeryDarkMan trademark claim that he legally took ownership of the “BLORD” brand has been widely circulated online — but a fact-check of official records and Nigerian trademark law shows that assertion is inaccurate.
Social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), asserted that he had secured rights to the “BLORD” name across 43 trademark classes and could therefore block businessman Linus Williams (known as Blord) from using the name in commerce.
What VeryDarkMan Trademark Claim Involved
VeryDarkMan argued that because the trademark register was supposedly “empty” when he filed his applications, his registration gave him exclusive rights to the “BLORD” name for categories such as marketing and logistics. He suggested this meant Blord could no longer use the name for his electric vehicle business or other ventures.
However, under Nigeria’s Trade Marks Act, word marks are treated as case-insensitive, meaning “BLORD” and “Blord” are legally considered the same.
Fact-Check: Legal Barriers to VeryDarkMan’s Claim
Official trademark records reveal that the name “Blord” had already been filed in certain classes by third parties before VDM’s application — giving those earlier filings priority under Nigerian law. In particular, entries from a subsidiary of the Blord Group and filings in key categories predate VeryDarkMan’s submissions.
Nigerian trademark law also prevents registration of marks that are identical or confusingly similar to existing marks in the same classes. As a result, VeryDarkMan’s trademark claim appears to conflict with fundamental legal requirements regarding prior use and vested rights.
Even though some of his applications were accepted for publication, they have not cleared all legal hurdles and cannot override existing filings that came earlier.
Legal Interpretation and Verdict
Based on an examination of the Trade Marks Act and official registry entries, the VeryDarkMan trademark claim that he now “owns” the BLORD brand and can stop others from using it is false. VDM’s filings do not legally block prior registrants who used identical or similar marks before his applications.
This means that, under current law, VeryDarkMan does not have enforceable exclusive rights to the BLORD name in categories already claimed earlier by others.
In conclusion, the VeryDarkMan trademark claim that he legally seized ownership of the BLORD brand does not hold up under scrutiny. Official trademarks records and Nigerian law confirm that prior filings and established use take precedence, making the activist’s assertion legally unsupported.
