imported from China. What remained to be established was whether the trademarks were
registered in China. The Plaintiff avoided this issue in its main submissions though the
Defendants Counsel had opted to supply the information upon carrying out a search from China
on whether the trademarks in issue were also registered in the country of origin. The Defendant’s
Counsel went ahead and filed the search results on the court record and served the same on the
Plaintiff's Counsel. The Plaintiff has not subsequently objected to the inclusion of these
additional facts that the Chinese manufacturers had actually registered their trademark in China.
This fact was incorporated in the submissions of Counsel and I have treated it with the necessary
caution because none of the parties adduced evidence.
To my mind the question is whether this dispute can be resolved on the basis of points of law
without regard or a lot of reference to factual matters. A point of law cannot be decided on the
basis of factual controversies except in determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action
where the pleadings are assumed to be true. Ultimately the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted
irrespective of whether the Chinese manufacturers were actually registered in China or not and
contended that this fact will not prejudice its case.
There are two basic issues incorporated in the major issue which is whether the registration of
the trademarks in dispute gives the Plaintiff exclusive rights in the territory of Uganda. These
issues are subsumed in the two issues argued namely:
1. Whether the Defendant has and continues to infringe on the Plaintiffs registered Mark?
2. Whether the Defendant is a bona fide user of Chinese manufactured marks?
The suit as framed raises a matter of public importance because the Defendant is an ordinary
importer of goods whose country of origin is China. The Defendant is not the registered
proprietor of the trade marks in those goods. The Defendant did not inquire as to the trademark
in those goods and upon selling the goods in Uganda it has now been challenged on the basis of a
Ugandan registered trademark.
The Plaintiff’s primary contention relies on the territorial principle. The Plaintiff relies on the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883 as amended over the years. The
gist of the Plaintiff’s submission is that a trademark duly registered in the country of the Union
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
16