The Applicant‟s Counsel submitted that the Respondent has no locus standi to challenge
the Applicant's Registration of the said trademark because the Respondent is confused
as to whom the manufacturer of the said goods is. As stated above, the Respondent has
disclosed different entities that is, Bingling Enterprises Limited, JIANSGU Ouman Textile
Technology Co. Ltd, and Luoyang City Guanlinlide Blanket Factory. Above all, none of the
said manufacturers has challenged the Registration of the Applicant in Uganda as
required in Law. The Respondent has not submitted any mandate from the· alleged
Manufacturers permitting the Respondent to challenge the Applicant‟s registration
premised on prior registration. The WSD is solely based on Bingling Enterprises Limited
being the owner of the trademark yet the Respondent confirms that Luoyang City
Guanlinlide Blanket Factory is the manufacturer and owner of the said Trademark in
China. At the same time, the Respondent has not directly challenged the Applicant's
Registration of the trademark as provided in Law nor has any manufacturer mandated
the Respondent to do so.
The Applicant‟s Counsel further submitted that the points of law above dispose of the
main suit and prayed that judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant with Costs
per Kampala Stocks Supermarket Co. Limited vs. Seven Days International
Limited, Civil Suit No. 112 of 2015.
In reply to this issue, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent
wishes to counterclaim the Applicant‟s submission that the Applicant has no capacity to
sue the Respondent. This is because the registered trademark Z moon
Purplemoon is established in China and the Applicant has no authority from the
registered owners to use a trademark similar to the registered owners in china or
to institute this suit. Secondly, the Applicant alleges to have authority from the
registered owners of the trademark Purplemoon blanket in Dubai which
authority is not produced as evidence.
Consequently learned Counsel contended that the Respondent has been using the
blankets bearing the trademark "z moon Purplemoon" for eight (8) years prior to
the Applicant registering the trademark Z moon all with the authority of the
manufacturers of the blankets in China; that had also earlier registered the
trademark as established in the copy of the trademark certificate attached to the
supplementary affidavit 2 by Muqtar Ali Zafar marked C and B. The Respondent‟s
Counsel submitted that the Applicant's later registration of the trademark Z moon
and dealing in the same blankets is fraudulent and passing off on the products
already sold by the Respondent who acquired a good image and market for the
same which is contrary to Section 35 of the Trademarks Act 2010. Learned
Counsel contended that in relation to the above, the Respondent has locus to
challenge registration of the Applicant's trademark for passing off as established
in paragraphs 4 (a) and (b) of the Respondent's written statement of defence and
paragraphs 5 (i) and (ii) of the Respondent's counter claim. Counsel further
submitted that the Respondent has locus to challenge the Applicant's trademark
since the Applicant is liable for passing off the goods of the Respondent. Finally
learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant equally can't enjoy exclusive use against
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style
9