Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction were also registered in China by the producers of the
products.
The facts are that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of various trademarks bearing Chinese
words and symbols that formed the subject matter of the suit. The Plaintiff is registered in
Uganda under the Uganda Trademarks Act 2010. Secondly the Plaintiff applied to have those
trademarks registered under Part A of the trademark register. The Defendant has been dealing in
the goods from China which the Plaintiff alleged bore the Plaintiff’s registered trademark
without authority from the Plaintiff.
On the other hand as far as the Defendant is concerned, the Defendant is a trader in various
consumer-products which it imports from China into Uganda. These goods are bought in the
open market in China and bear original manufacturers marks and the Defendant resells them
without any alteration. The manufacturers whose goods are sold by the Defendant are registered
trademark owners in China prior to the Plaintiff’s registration in Uganda. The Defendant alleges
that the Plaintiff also purchases its products from the same sources and unlawfully purported to
register closely related trademarks to the Chinese manufacturer’s marks in Uganda with the
intention of outcompeting the Defendant and other traders.
As far as the points of law are concerned both Counsels agreed that the controversy can be
substantially resolved on a point of law. It was agreed that the Plaintiff is the registered
proprietor of the trademarks which formed the subject matter of the suit in Uganda. Secondly the
Chinese manufacturers of the goods in question are not a party to this suit. It is not agreed that
the manufacturers in China are the proprietors of the disputed trademarks registered in China
prior to the Plaintiff’s registration in Uganda. Secondly it is not agreed the registration of the
Plaintiffs Trademarks in Uganda was bona fide. It is further not agreed that trademarks of the
Plaintiff in Uganda belong to Chinese manufacturers based in China.
I agree with the Defendant’s Counsel that the actual issue which is not based on any
controversial facts is whether the registration of the disputed trademarks in Uganda confers
exclusive rights on the Plaintiff as far as the registered trademarks are concerned. This is because
it is an agreed fact that the Defendants imported goods from China from certain Chinese
manufacturers and in the open market. The Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the goods are
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
15