registered as such even if he or she is not originally registered in the country of origin of the
goods.
Under section 18 (1) of the Trademarks Act, registration in part "A" of the register of the
trademark is after the expiration of seven years from the date of the registration to be taken to be
valid in all respects except where the registration was obtained by fraud.
In paragraph 6 of the written statement of defence, the Defendant avers that the Plaintiff's
trademarks were registered illegally and fraudulently and ought to be removed from the register.
The only defence to the assertion is that the Defendants have no locus standi. On the other hand
the Defendant asserts that it is an illegality brought to the attention of the court and cited the case
of Makula International Ltd versus His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga (supra). In support of
the Defendants assertion is the Canadian article in the Trademark Reporter Vol. 93 May –
June, 2003 No. 3 at pages 541 and 542. The article writes that:
“Canadian courts have on many occasions prevented licensees and distributors from
registering trademarks associated with the goods produced by foreign manufacturers,
even in cases where the foreign manufacturer is not directly carrying on business in
Canada or is not otherwise directly involved in any transaction that takes place in
Canada.”
No details of the Canadian court cases have been produced and the principles for their refusal
have not been stated. Reading the above passage relied upon literally, it advances the principles
for registration of marks. It does not deal with the grounds for removal of a mark. It does not
discuss the question of who should bring the action for deregistration of the Plaintiff. Though
one can consider the principle as salutary and supportive of freedom of trade, in Uganda there is
a specific provision that enables a registered owner to sue for removal of a trademark under
section 45 of the Trademark Act 2010 which has been considered above.
In the premises the Defendants does not have sufficient interest in law to have the Plaintiff
removed from the register. This is because the Defendant is a resident of Uganda and never
objected to the registration of the Plaintiff for the disputed trademarks. The Plaintiff had the
intention to apply gazetted as prescribed and the Registrar of Trademarks who is the expert in
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
28