Issues:
1.
Whether the 1st plaintiff has a valid claim in respect of this suit.
2.
Whether the sale of the plaintiffs’ product contravenes UNBS Standards, regulations and policy.
3.
Whether the plaintiffs’ product is banned on the Ugandan market.
4.
Whether the product imported by the defendants infringes on the plaintiffs’ trademark in Uganda.
5.
Whether the word Mekako is registered as an international trademark.
6.
Whether the soap imported by the defendants into Uganda is under the International trademark, if
any.
7.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs claimed against the defendants.
Representations:
Mr. Frederick Mpanga for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Mohammed Mbabazi for the defendants.
Issue No. 1: Whether the first plaintiff has a valid claim in respect of this suit.
This issue arises from the fact that the 1st plaintiff on 2 occasions, that is, on 14th July 2004 and 20th
January 2007 executed deeds of assignment in favour of Americ Enterprises Ltd. The latter deed of
assignment is on record as Exh. P 20 whereas the former is Exh. D4. Both deeds are not registered on
the Register of trademark. The 1st plaintiff is named as the registered proprietor of the Trademark
‘Mekako’ in Uganda.
I have considered the evidence of the parties on this point. In law a fact is said to be proved when the
Court is satisfied as to its truth. The evidence by which that result is produced is called the proof. The
general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or
question in dispute. When that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what he
asserts is true, he is said to shift the burden of proof: that is, his allegation is presumed to be true, unless
his opponent adduces evidence to rebut the presumption.
In the instant case, the two deeds of assignment are not denied by the 1 st plaintiff. Its case, however, is
that they are ineffective on account of being unregistered. I agree.
4