With regard to the authorities cited by the Defendants Counsel, the Plaintiff's Counsel
distinguished the case of Tecno Telecommunications Limited versus Kigalo Investments Ltd
(supra). As far as locus standi is concerned, the Applicant was the donee and authorised agent of
the registered proprietor in China but in the instant case there is no nexus between the Defendant
and the presumed registered proprietors China. The Defendant cannot base his defence on
registration China because it lacks the locus standi to seek legal remedies in favour of Chinese
manufacturers.
The submission to expunge the Plaintiff's trademarks from the Registrar is not only a departure
from the pleadings but also an erroneous procedure under section 45 and 46 of the Trademarks
Act 2010. The provisions require such remedies to be served by way of a formal application. In
the particular case, the Plaintiff moved the court by a formal application and also had the legal
capacity to bring the motion before the court.
In so far as the decisions cited by the Defendant’s Counsel are from countries who are parties to
the Paris Convention is concerned, the principle of the territoriality, locus standi and precedence
of domestic legislation are of universal application in all contracting states. The Paris Convention
provides that countries can establish their own trademark rules regarding the scope of rights,
applicable legal norms, conditions and enforcement of rights (see article 6 of the Paris
Convention).
Concerning unfair competition, the Plaintiff’s are registered proprietors in the Ugandan territory
whose rights are exclusively derived and have legal backing of the Trademarks Act 2010. The
Plaintiff does not exclusively create a monopoly because the Trademarks Act allows the Plaintiff
to assign or licences third parties to deal in products with the same registered trademark. The
issue of unfair condition is being smuggled and is a departure from the Defendant's pleadings.
In light of the submissions, the Plaintiff's Counsel prayed that the court finds for the Plaintiff.
Partial judgment
I have carefully considered the Plaintiff’s pleadings as well as the Defendant's pleadings and the
facts and circumstances of this suit.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
13