trademark matters registered the Plaintiff for the trademarks consisting of Chinese characters and
Latin characters in part “A” for trademark branding of consumer products such as foods and
beverages listed above. The question of good will protection of any other registered proprietor in
the country of origin can only be considered when they or their agents come to court to challenge
the Plaintiff. That is when the courts will have an opportunity to consider the marks on merits. In
the meantime the Defendant has no locus standi to challenge the Plaintiff’s registration. The
Plaintiff enjoys protection of its mark by virtue of statutory protection upon first registration in
Uganda and under section 37 (1) of the Trademarks Act 2010.
Furthermore in conclusion of the submissions on section 44 of the Trademarks Act 2010 The
registration of the Plaintiff has already been done. For the Plaintiff to be deregistered the matter
has to be resolved in a suit for deregistration by a person having locus standi. The court is
mindful of the fact that there could be a matter to be tried as to whether the Plaintiff is properly
registered as a distributor or as a producer of the marks in question. The Registrar did exercise
discretionary powers to register the Plaintiff’s trademark and ought to be made a party to explain
the basis of the registration on the application of an owner or agent of the owner of a registered
trademark that is similar to that registration in a country of Origin of the goods. That question is
not properly before this court and cannot be tried.
Last but not least there is a question of whether the Defendant is a bona fide user of the
trademark having innocently imported products from China bearing trademarks that the Plaintiff
seeks to bar on the ground that they require the Plaintiffs licence.
It is true that the Defendants are traders but they cannot claim innocence by virtue of
advertisement for the trademarks advertised by the Plaintiff. If the trademarks are similar or the
same the Plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction and the remedies claimed in this suit.
When the issue of law was framed, it was on the assumption that the trademarks in dispute are
the same or similar and that they would among other things confuse the consumers of the
products. It is only after examining the marks did I reach different understanding of the issues for
determination.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
29