19
expunged from the records upon the plaintiff’s counsel informing court that they were dispensing
with the same because the handwriting expert who made the report was indisposed.
The defendants allege that the said letter of distributorship was attached to the application for a
trademark in the Registry of Trademarks. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the same is not
mentioned anywhere in the Statutory Declaration of the Plaintiff’s managing director. It is
indeed true that the letter of distributorship is not mentioned in the Statutory Declaration but if at
all it was attached to the application itself one would not expect it to appear in the Statutory
Declaration that was made later.
In addition, I have found some coincidences which attracted my attention and in my view
strengthens the defendants’ contention that the letter of distributorship was signed between the
parties. First of all, it is the evidence of PW1 that the plaintiff started dealing with the 3 rd
defendant in 2006 when PW1 met Mr. Shore in China. He also stated during cross examination
that the Plaintiff was importing PANASUPER batteries from the 3rd defendant from 2006 until
2012 when it stopped because Linyi started dealing with Bilen and now the plaintiff imports
PAN SUPER batteries from another company in China called Xinda battery which manufactures
PAN SUPER batteries although it does not own the PAN SUPER trademark in China. He stated
that the plaintiff does not also own that trademark in Uganda.
Later PW1 also testified that the plaintiff stopped importing PANASUPER batteries because Mr.
Shore told him that they stopped producing the same as a result of a problem Linyi got with
Panasonic Japan in China. Some emails were tendered in evidence as Exhibits P9 (i) & P9 (ii) as
proof of communication between Mr. Shore and PW1. I must however observe that a critical
look at the alleged communication from Mr. Shore about having a dispute with Panasonic
Company is a print out of a forwarded email from Almuse Afeworki whose address is
[email protected] to muse afework [email protected]. The subject is Fwd;
documents for 2x20‟fcl of R20 Powershiba battery.
During cross examination, PW1 explained that the document was an email from Mr. Shore to
him which he had forwarded to his counsel. He however conceded that the communication was
according to the subject in respect of Powershiba batteries which is not the same as
PANASUPER. While PW1 stated that the email was from Mr. Shore, there is nothing on the
address to suggest that the said Mr. Shore sent that email. It is common knowledge that even
19