6
application was opposed by Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd of Japan, the registered
proprietors of Trademarks No. 25731 and 28536 PANASONIC. It is also the plaintiff’s evidence
that since the registration of the trademark had been opposed, the plaintiff requested Mr. Shore to
formalize the authority under which the plaintiff was empowered to register the PANASUPER
trademark following which Mr. Shore procured a power of attorney from the 3rd defendant
authorizing the plaintiff to register the trademark in its name and for its own use.
It is the plaintiff’s submission that upon obtaining the trademark from the 3rd defendant, it
registered the trademark in accordance with the Trademarks Act Cap 217 (hereinafter called Cap.
217) and the Trademark Rules SI 217-1 (hereinafter called the Rules). He referred to sections 19
(1) and 20 (1) of Cap. 217 and rule 42 (1) of the Rules which require that the application should
be made and advertised in the Gazette while rule 46 and 47 provide for opposition of registration
of a trademark. He also referred to section 21 (1) (b) of Cap. 217 which provides that when a
trademark is registered it shall be registered as of the date of the application for registration and
that date shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act to be the date of registration.
To prove that the plaintiff registered the trademark in accordance with the law, counsel for the
plaintiff relied on Exhibits D15, P1, D12 and P2 being the application for registration of the
trademark, the Gazette in which the application was published, the ruling disposing of the
opposition of registration of the trademark by Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd and the
Certificate of Registration of the trademark respectively. He submitted that the allegation by
DW1 that the plaintiff was requested to register the trademark in the 3rd defendant’s name is not
conceivable because of the following reasons:
The OEM Cooperation Agreement which was executed on 11th September 2006 by Mr.
Shore on behalf of the 2nd defendant clearly states in clauses 2 and 5 that the Plaintiff is
the owner of the PANASUPER trademark in Uganda.
The power of attorney executed by Mr. Shore on behalf of the 3rd defendant and in favour
of the plaintiff clearly states that the plaintiff should register the PANASUPER trademark
in its (plaintiff) name and for its own use.
The 2nd defendant owns trademark No. 28773- PAIR TIGER (Exhibit P7) which was
registered prior to the PANASUPER trademark.
6