Applicant's trade mark and the same is pending hearing before this Honourable Court. The
continued sale and distribution of the Respondent's blankets with the insertion of the
Applicant's registered trade mark amounts to a misrepresentation to the consuming public
that the Respondent‟s blankets are those of the Applicant whereas not. The Respondent's
use of the Applicant's registered trade mark is intended to ride on the good will of the
Applicant. It is also a deliberate act by the Respondent or the Respondent principals,
servants or agents so as to derive benefit from the Applicant's reputation and goodwill in
its goods by selling the Respondent‟s goods with the Applicant's registered trade mark.
The Applicant avers and repeats that the Respondent and/ or Respondent's agents or
servants are infringing the Applicant's registered trade mark, (moon with the logo).
The Respondent‟s rebuttal is contained in an affidavit in reply deposed to by Muqtar Ali Zafar,
the director of the Respondent affirmed on the 30th of November 2016 where he deposed that:
The Respondent was incorporated on the 25th day of September 2008 and has since then been
carrying out business whose goods, among others include blankets, textiles and textile goods.
The manufacturer of the goods in question is a company called JINSGU OUMAN TEXTILE
TECHNOLOGY CO LTD whose place of business is in the People's Republic of China. The
Respondent has been buying and dealing in the above goods from the above named
manufacturer. The manufacturer then appointed the Respondent to be their duly authorised agent
in Uganda with regard to their goods which authority the Respondent accepted and continued to
act as the manufacturer‟s agent in Uganda with regard to the goods in question. This is according
to the appointment letter by the manufacturer annexure "B". The Respondent applied to have the
goods registered and was shocked that the application was objected to on the ground that it was
already registered by persons dealing in the same goods. He deposes that the Applicant
fraudulently applied and obtained protection with the knowledge of the manufacturer‟s existence
and without the consent of the manufacturer or dealer and the same goods as his agent, which
consent the manufacturer had already given to the Respondent. As a result of the fraudulent acts,
the Respondent counterclaims against the Applicants registration in the main suit before the
court through its lawyers. The Applicant is not the duly authorised agent of the manufacturer or
dealer in the sale and distribution of the above goods and is unlawfully doing so.
The Respondent was served with court documents which included an interim application undated
for the hearing of the application which proceeded ex parte and the order granted which was
prejudicial to the Respondents interests. Since the Applicant is not the lawful authorised agent of
the manufacturer, he was never entitled to the grant of an interim injunction and it has continued
to pass off as the manufacturers agent whereas not. This affidavit was filed on court record on 1st
December, 2016.
In a supplementary affidavit in reply filed on 9th December, 2016 dated 9th December, 2016
Muqtar Ali Zafar, director of the Respondent furthermore clarified as follows. The Respondent
was incorporated on 25th September, 2008 and has since been carrying on business whose goods
among others include blankets, textiles and textile goods. The manufacturer of the goods in
question is a company called BINGLING Enterprises Ltd whose place of business is in the
People's Republic of China and whose sole distributor is JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE
TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD operating in the People's Republic of China. The Respondent was/is
a duly authorized agent in Uganda to deal in the impugned goods/products in which authority the
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style
2