The plaintiff called two witnesses who also filed witness statements. The first witness PW1 Mr
Jackson Ronald Lutunda is a Compliance Enforcement Officer of Uganda Registration Services
Bureau and an Inspector of Trademarks who went and inspected the defendant's premises and
recovered some infringing materials pursuant to a court order made under section 79 of The
Trademarks Act 2010 to seize the infringing materials as evidence. The second witness is Mr
Edward Lubega PW2 the Customer Development Executive Uganda of Colgate – Palmolive
Company. Counsel Siraje Ali represented the plaintiff and the proceedings and after the
testimony addressed the court in written submissions. The facts of the suit are sufficiently stated
in the written submissions of counsel.
The gist of the submissions are that the plaintiff in addition to filing a suit against the defendant
filed an application for an Anton pillar order for the inspection of or removal from the
defendant's premises or control, the right infringing toothbrushes, which constitute evidence of
infringement and passing off by the defendant which order was obtained and on 20th September,
2016. An inspection of the defendant's premises was made by Mr Jackson Ronald Lutunda, an
Inspector of Trademarks in the presence of other officers and representatives of the defendants as
well as policemen attached to Mbale Police Station. Thirty dozen and five pieces of the right
infringing toothbrushes were found on the shelves and were removed and kept by the Uganda
Registration Services Bureau at their offices at Georgian House on George Street, Kampala as
recommended by the Inspector of Trademarks.
A separate inspection was carried out at the defendant‘s branch at Mukono by Mr Draku G
William, an inspector of trademarks in the presence of Counsel Kabayiza Brian a representative
of the plaintiff and also a representative of the defendant and policemen attached to Mukono
police station. None of the right infringing toothbrushes were found in the defendant supermarket
in Mukono. The defendant having failed to file a written statement of defence the matter
proceeded for formal proof.
Issues for resolution:
1. Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs "Colgate double action" trademark by
offering for sale toothbrushes bearing the Mark‖ Colage double action"?
2. Whether the defendants act of offering for sale toothbrushes bearing the Mark "Colage
double action" constitutes passing off of the plaintiffs toothbrushes which bear the Mark
"Colgate double action"?
Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiffs "Colgate double action" trademark by offering
for sale toothbrushes bearing the Mark "Colage double action"?
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style