prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration of the trademark and all subsequent assignments
and transmissions of the same: Section 45 of the Trademarks Act, Cap. 217.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the defendants’ objection to the 1st plaintiff’s claim. The objection
shall be overruled and the first issue answered in the affirmative.
I do so.
Issue No. 2: Whether the sale of the plaintiffs’ product contravenes UNBS Standards, regulations
and policy.
The evidence of PW1 Zziwa Ahmed and PW6 Nizarali Alibhai is that they deal in cosmetic products
and soap. The soap includes among others the soap sold under the trademark MEKAKO. From the
evidence, the soap and/or the products sold by the plaintiffs were tested by UNBS to ascertain whether
or not it contains any prohibited substances which include mercury, hydroquinone and steroids. The
findings of the UNBS in regard to the plaintiffs’ soap are contained in a report, Exh. P11. The report
shows that the soap does not contain mercury or any other prohibited substances. It is therefore fit for
human use. Therefore, the sale of the plaintiffs’ soap/products in Uganda does not contravene UNBS
policy. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the unchallenged evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs that they (the plaintiffs) used to bring in soap containing mercury. This was before UNBS
issued a prohibition order. The effect of the UNBS prohibition order and the circumstances under which
the plaintiffs’ soap and other cosmetics containing prohibited substances continued to be sold in Uganda
have been sufficiently explained to Court. The totality of that evidence is that the prohibition order did
not affect soap which had already found its way on to the Uganda market or soap which was in the
process of being brought in. Court is therefore satisfied that the sale of the soap under the trademark is
an exception to the UNBS policy. The sale was authorized and/or done with the knowledge of UNBS.
Court is further satisfied that the soap intended for sale by the plaintiffs subsequent to the UNBS
prohibition order does not contain any prohibited substance such as mercury. It meets the UNBS
standards, regulations and policy.
I would answer the 2nd and 3rd issues in the negative and I do so.
Issue No. 4:
Whether the product imported by the defendants infringes on the plaintiffs’
trademark in Uganda.
6