impressions or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of
the whole.’
Spry Ag. P went on to hold that ‘… The test is the impression on the average customer…’
In the Brooke Bond case (supra) the court took judicial notice of the number of illiterate persons
in Kenya a situation which court had to bear in mind. This argument is not far from the reality in
Uganda and the circumstances of this case warrant a similar application which still offers the
same conclusion.
In the further case of Hassanali M. Sachoo V John Hopkins O.V.T [1958] EA 463 Sir
O’Connor held that
‘It seems to me that each of these cases must be looked at by itself and the Judge
looking at the label or get-up or the device, whatever, it may be that is
complained of, with such assistance as to the practice of the trade as he can get
from witnesses must decide for himself whether the article complained of is
calculated to deceive or not.’
At the end of the day what ever the evidence presented to court it is for the Judge to decide
whether the offending product is calculated to deceive or not.
The evidence on record by witnesses from both parties is that the Marie biscuit in issue is one
that is consumed by ordinary persons for which to my mind means it is a mass market product
that also there targets the illiterate and unsophisticated consumer. This as result is more likely to
lead to confusion.
In this case, both parties‟ get-ups are red amongst other similar features set out in prior
arguments with the only distinguishing feature being the logos. It is only right for me to conclude
that the bulk of the consumers identify the plaintiff‟s goods with the general impression of the
red colour. It follows therefore and I so find that the get up of the plaintiff and defendant are
similar and therefore the plaintiff has good will in his product that can be eroded by the
defendant‟s product. I also find that the defendant ought to have done more to distinguish their
own Marie get up. I further find that it was not sufficient just to break the bulk into smaller
packages of different shapes either as was discussed in the Brooke Bond case (supra).
As to the test of misrepresentation this to my mind is not too different from the issue of
confusion discussed above.
Lord Langdale MR. laid down the classic underlying principle in the case of Perry v Truefitt
(1842) 49 ER 749 where he stated that „a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence
that they are the goods of another trader’
7