particulars of a phone TECNO T220 serial No. 35359730193583 attached to the affidavit as
annexture “A”.
He deposed that he searched the internet and discovered that the applicant company was actually
located in China and that a certain company with the same address as that of the applicant in
Hong Kong attempted to register a trademark in China on 16th June 2009 but the same was
rejected on the grounds that the mark was similar to that which had already been registered.
Documents written in Chinese Language with presumably an English translation attached thereto
were annexed as “C”, “C1” and “C2”.
He further deposed that the respondent was indeed the registered owner of the trademark in
Uganda and was a dealer in mobile phones from the time it was incorporated. Further that the
respondent imported unlabeled mobile phones manufactured in China, labeled them with its
mark TECHNO and sold them to the public as shown by its records of imports from Uganda
Revenue Authority attached to the affidavit as annextures “E1-E21”.
He concluded that the applicant had failed to prove that he was the owner of the TECNO
trademark in China the country of origin of the phones it sold in Uganda and that it had also
failed to prove that it sold phones manufactured in Hong Kong which accords similar treatment
to Ugandan goods there. He asked court to dismiss this application.
An affidavit in rejoinder sworn by Mr. Wenbig Ruan was filed on 27th June 2011. The deponent
confirmed that the applicant company was incorporated in Hong Kong and attached a copy of the
Certificate of Registration as annexture “A”. He deposed that the applicant company was the
registered owner of TECNO trademark and had office branches in China which is one and the
same as Hong Kong. Further that the respondent had not genuinely used the trademark as
labeling of phones with the mark TECNO was an act of passing off that could not be called
genuine use.
On 27th June 2011, when the application was called on for hearing, counsel for the applicant
decried the late service of the affidavit in reply which was allegedly effected at 12.40 pm less
than two hours before the time for hearing of the application. He observed that consequent upon
the late service, the affidavit in reply was prepared and filed in a rush that afternoon. Counsel for
the respondent apologized for the late service and explained that his client did not know the
English language and so they had to use an interpreter who was not available until that morning.
He also pointed out that the applicant filed its application and subsequently filed an amended
notice of motion allegedly out of time but without leave of court. He however, stated that he did
not intend to formally raise an objection on that ground because he wanted the matter to be heard
and determined on its merit.
On another note, counsel for the respondent informed court that he intended to apply for security
for costs and prayed that the matter be adjourned to enable him do so. Counsel for the applicant
opposed the application for adjournment on the grounds that firstly; applications for security for
costs were matters reserved for the Registrars to handle which should not hold up proceedings in
the main matter and secondly that there was an inordinate delay in bringing that application.

Select target paragraph3