The affidavit in support of the appeal primarily gives the facts of the dispute which will be
considered from the submissions of Counsel. The appeal is supported by the affidavit of Mr
Michael Mafabi and the supplementary affidavit of Mr Kevin Ashley. In the affidavit in reply to
the notice of motion in opposing the grounds of appeal is the affidavit of Mr Yasin Ahmed, the
Finance/Director of Mandela Auto Spares Ltd. The Respondent is the registered proprietor of
trademark number 40162 registered in class 30, trademark number 47765 registered in class 21,
trademark number 47766 registered in class 32, trademark number 47767 register the transfer to
the and the word acronym 'Cafe Javas'. On the basis of being duly registered trademarks, the
Respondent successfully opposed the application for registration by extension of the Appellants
proposed trademark under the style of 'Nairobi Java house' before the Assistant Registrar of
Trademarks in Uganda Registration Services Bureau for the reasons that are contained in the
decision appealed against. The Respondent opposed the appeal and intends to defend the
decision of the Assistant Registrar, Trademarks.
The Appellant‘s sought to amend the Memorandum of Appeal in Miscellaneous Application
Number 580 of 2015 and application was dismissed on 27 August 2015. The court was addressed
in written submissions. In the appeal Counsel James Mukasa Sebugenyi of Messieurs Sebalu and
Lule advocates represented the Appellant while Counsel Alex Rezida represented the
Respondent.
The Appellant's written submissions in support of the appeal is that the appeal is against the
decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks also referred to as the "Assistant Registrar"
dated 21st of May 2015 in relation to trademark opposition proceedings filed by Mandela Auto
Spares Ltd, the Respondent. The proceedings were against the registration of trademark
application number 48062/2013 'Java House and Java Sun' and trademark application number
48063/2013 'Nairobi Java house' which marks are the Appellant's trademarks in the name of the
Appellant. In the ruling or decision the Assistant Registrar upheld the objection of the
Respondent and found that the proposed registration of the Appellant's trademarks would lead to
confusion in the marketplace.
The Appellant proposed to submit on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the notice of motion and
proposed that the grounds 8 and 9 would not be addressed in light of the finding of the court in
the ruling dated 27th of August 2015 High Court Miscellaneous Application No 580 of 2015