The Applicant is the proprietor of the registered trade mark of Britannia and has acquired
substantial goodwill in the said trademark by trading in Biscuits over the last decades in
Uganda and East Africa.
That the Respondent without any form of authority is infringing on their trademark of
“Britannia” and passing off the said trade name.
That the Applicant’s good will is in danger of being wasted and irreparably damaged by
the Respondent.
That it is in the interest of justice and equity that the said interim order be granted.
The Applicant has matters to raise involving substantial questions of law and in the
interests of justice the application should be granted.

The application was supported by the affidavit of Vinay Dawda which was read and relied upon
at the hearing.

In their affidavit in reply, the Respondent/Defendant claimed that their biscuits and other
confectionaries are imported from Britannia Industries of India, a Company established in 1892
and has since been manufacturing and selling biscuits all over the world.

Further that the Applicant’s trademark is distinct and different from that Britannia Industries Ltd,
and all allegations of passing off or infringement of trade mark were denied.

It was also the contention of the Respondent that the application was misconceived.

When the application was called for hearing on 23.04.14, Counsel for the Applicant was present
but Counsel for the Respondent was absent.

Since there was an affidavit of service dated 22nd April, indicating that Respondent’s Counsel
was served and accepted service, and there being no reason advanced for their absence, hearing
proceeded without them.

Counsel for the Applicant went through the grounds of the application and the affidavit in
support. Thereafter he recited the principles for grant of an injunction to wit: To preserve the

Select target paragraph3