which both Uganda and China are signatories and other international instruments. The
international instruments include the Banjul Protocol on marks.
The general rule is found under article 6 (3) of the Paris Convention which provides that a mark
duly registered in the country of the Union shall be regarded as independent of marks registered
in other countries of the union. The position is very clear whether or not the trademarks were
registered in China is of no consequence in the Ugandan territory.
Secondly the territorial nature of the trademark recognition is further emphasised by article 6 (1)
of the Paris Convention which provides that the conditions for filing and registration of
trademarks shall be determined in the country of the Union by the domestic legislation of the
country.
Thirdly the convention takes cognizance of the fact that domestic legislation or the domestic
laws within an individual member state have precedence over the convention. Fourthly the
Plaintiff applied to the Registrar of Trademarks to have the registered marks registered within the
Ugandan territory as local marks and not international markets. The application was approved
and the Plaintiff was granted certificates of registration for the various marks within the Ugandan
territory. By virtue of the registrations, the Plaintiff has exclusive rights in respect of the marks
insofar as Uganda is concerned.
Fifthly the registration of the marks was not contested or challenged in the Ugandan territory by
an application in accordance with section 44 of the Trademarks Act of Uganda. As such they still
stand as local trademarks belonging to the Plaintiff in Uganda. Additionally the territorial nature
of trademarks is recognised under the provisions of the Banjul Protocol on Marks as amended in
2004. Section 2 of the Banjul protocol provides that all applications for registration shall be filed
either directly or with the ARIPO office or the International property office of a contracting state.
Section 3 thereof provides that the application shall indicate the goods or services in respect of
which protection of the marks claimed and designate the contracting states in which registration
is sought. In the case of Anglo Fabrics Bolton and another versus African Queen Ltd HCCS
0632 of 2006, Honourable Justice Yorokamu Bamwine discussed what amounted to international
trademarks. He held that international trademarks and trademarks are registered under
international protocols like the Banjul Protocol for registration under the African Intellectual
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
11