toothbrush show an intention by the Defendant to pass-off its goods as the goods of the
Plaintiff for the purposes of riding on the Plaintiff‟s good will and reputation. As testified by
Ms. Walusimbi the Defendant‟s toothbrushes if released to the public would injure the
Plaintiff‟s business in terms of loss of sale and revenue as the public would purchase the
same believing them to be the products of the Plaintiff. That would be unfair competition.
The Plaintiff has established that it has a business reputation, which it has built over the years
under the trademarks NICE and NICE TOOTHBRUSH and the get-up. Therefore it has a
right to restrain anyone else from injuring its business by using the same trademarks,
packaging, and get-up. The third issue is also answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies prayed for.
The Plaintiff prayed for orders that a permanent injunction issues against the Defendant
restraining him from the use and further and continued use of the marks NICE and NICE
TOOTHBRUSH in regard to packets of toothbrushes and toothbrushes, the infringement of
the Plaintiff‟s trademarks namely NICE and NICE TOOTHBRUSH, the use and continued
use of the packets, packing and/or get-up identical/similar to the ones used by the Plaintiff
and from branding his products with marks similar to the Plaintiff‟s trademarks. I have
already found that the Plaintiff has proved that the Defendant has infringed on the Plaintiff‟s
trademarks NICE and NICE TOOTHBRUSH. The Defendant is not a registered user or
licencee of the said trademarks and therefore had no right to use the said trademarks. The
Plaintiff has also shown that the Defendant‟s actions amounted to passing off his trade goods
as goods of the Plaintiff, to the determent of the Plaintiff‟s business. The Plaintiff has shown
that it is likely to suffer damage if the Defendant continues to infringe its trademarks and or if
the Defendant continues to pass-off his goods as those of the Plaintiff. In the circumstances I
find that the plaintiff is entitled to the Injunction Orders sought and I so order.
It is further directed that the Plaintiff in conjunction with the Uganda Revenue Authority
should make joint arrangements and cause the infringing consignment of toothbrushes
consignment to the Defendant and currently detained in bond 391, as per this Court Order
dated 11th November 2005, to be destroyed by burning or in such other manner as can get
them destroyed and completely disposed off.
10