491.
The plaintiffs have demonstrated a misrepresentation by the defendants, to the public, in the sense that
their (the defendants) product has also been on the market selling along side that of the 2nd plaintiff,
PW1. His complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Exh. P19 is clear testimony of this. Court is
satisfied that the defendants are passing off their product as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ head
prayer is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the words/mark MEKAKO on
their soap and/or other products. They also seek an order restraining them from infringing their Mekako
trademark and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from use and further continued use of
the packaging and product get up similar to that used by the plaintiffs.
Court is of the view that a trademark owner who successfully shows likelihood of confusion has a right
of action in damages or for an account, and for an injunction to restrain the defendant for the future.
Prayer (e) is for an order that the defendants account to the plaintiffs the profits so far made from the use
of its above mentioned trademark and product get-up, or in the alternative an enquiry into damages. At
the trial, the plaintiffs appear to have abandoned the prayer for an account.
In view of my findings above, the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs stated above, the subject matter of
prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the plaint. I grant them.
The infringing soap now in the custody of the Uganda Revenue Authority (the URA) shall be delivered
up to the plaintiffs for destruction under the supervision of the officials of the Uganda National Bureau
of Standards, the UNBS.
The plaintiffs also pray for general damages for the defendants’ infringement of their trademark and
passing off, and the costs of the suit. They want the damages awarded to reflect disruption of their
business, time spent in Court attendances, and money spent on PW6 while traveling to and from
Kampala and Nairobi on two occasions. Learned counsel for the plaintiff proposed a figure of Shs.15m.
I think this is far too high. Doing the best I can in the circumstances of this case, I consider a sum of
Shs.10,000,000= (ten million only) adequate compensation to the plaintiffs for the wrongful acts of the
defendants, jointly and/or severally, and interest at the rate of 25% per annum on the decretal sum. In
keeping with the principal that costs follow the event, the plaintiffs shall also have the costs of the suit.
9