THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 1137 OF 2016 (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 989 OF 2016) PURPLEMOON (U) LTD}.........................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS NUMAA INDUSTRIES LTD}................................................................RESPONDENT BEFORE HON. MR. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA IZAMA RULING The Applicant‟s application is brought under Order 41 rules 2 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 4 of the Trademarks Act No. 17 of 2010 and section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is for orders that a temporary injunction is issued against the Respondent, its servants, and/or agents restraining them from selling, dealing in, and distributing all the Respondent‟s goods (blankets and /or materials) bearing the Applicant‟s registered trade mark (moon with the logo) until the final disposal of the suit and for costs of the application to be provided for. The grounds of the application are set out in the affidavit in support of the application affirmed by Muhammed Imran, the director of the Applicant as follows; The Applicant has since incorporation carried on the business of dealing in a range/variety of Textile materials and goods in Uganda. On 29th July, 2015 the Applicant registered a trade mark in Part A of the Register, Class 24 under Number 53206 in respect of Textiles and Textile goods to wit bed covers, table covers, blankets, bed sheets inter alia. The Applicant has since inserted the said registered mark on its blankets inter alia. On 14th October, 2016 the Applicant purchased a blanket from the Respondent. Upon scrutiny of the said blanket it was discovered that the said blanket bears the registered trademark of the Applicant. The Applicant contended that the Respondent is selling and distributing blankets bearing the Applicant's registered trade mark without mandate from the Applicant. He averred that he is informed by his lawyers as follows; the use of the Applicant's registered trademark by the Respondent in the manner mentioned herein amounts to an infringement of the Applicant's trademark and product get-up; the Applicant has a prima facie case with high chances of success; if no order is issued, he would suffer irreparable damage given that the conduct of the Respondent is injurious to the reputation of the Applicant's business which when damaged cannot be atoned for in terms of damages and that the balance of convenience dictates in favour of the Applicant given that the Applicant is the registered owner of the trademark. Consequently, the Applicant has filed a suit against the Respondent for infringement of the Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 1