ICT Policy Africa

security, cryptography and electronic certification activities; protect basic human rights, in particular the right to human dignity, honour and respect of privacy, as well as the

peoples' rights should necessarily guarantee human rights; http://confinder.richmond.edu/Cameroon.htm (50 of 71)4/12/2005 10:53:07 AM Cameroon considering that the enjoyment of rights and

public data must be a minimum of a level 2 Data Centre. Rights of Way/Way Leaves: Rights of way, way leaves, permits and clearances have been a persistent

by the respondent and so that registration was an infringement on the applicant’s right to use the trademark in Uganda. He further deposed that the applicant had never

Respondent to have locus standi, the Respondent's right must have been breached by the Applicant or the right it enjoys through the authority of a third

trademark infringement plaintiff must show a valid, protectable trademark in which he has rights prior to those of the defendant. The plaintiff herein has through the evidence of

trademark infringement plaintiff must show a valid, protectable trademark in which he has rights prior to those of the defendant. The plaintiff herein has through the evidence of

the person with the exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods in or respect of which it is registered. Such right in the trademark deemed to

affect the rights of action against any person for passing off goods as the goods of another person or the remedies in respect of those rights of action

mark owner who successfully shows 5 likelihood of confusion, has in my opinion, a right of action in damages or for an account, and for an injunction to restrain the

submitted on the Appellant‘s entitlement to register the word 'Java 'in its own right and as a descriptive word. The Appellants Counsel submitted that the Assistant Registrar

to support a cause of action, namely that; 1. the plaintiff enjoyed a right, 2. the right has been violated, 3. the defendant is liable. It was submitted that to

in Southern Sudan hold the trademark and the exclusive Supermatch commercial territorial rights for both Uganda and Southern Sudan. It is the case of the applicant that certain

their own trademark rules regarding the scope of rights, applicable legal norms, conditions and enforcement of rights (see article 6 of the Paris Convention). Concerning

Is it the proprietary right assigned to the applicant conferred by the registered trademark? Can be asserted that such proprietary right to a trademark is

action.‖ The right of action by a plain reading of the section is the right of action of a rights owner of a trademark suing another person for passing off

Court was urged to look at S.36 of the Trade Mark Act that grants exclusive rights for use where the Trade Mark is registered. Counsel argued that since the Applicant’s

the 1st plaintiff. However, they are ineffective on account of being unregistered. A right in a trademark is conferred on registration in the Register of Trademarks of a

goodwill has a property right that can be protected by an action in passing off. Buckley LJ described the nature of the proprietary right in the case of HP Bulmer

Properties Act, 1982 applied to the suit land, that declaration conferred proprietary rights to the applicants. In his view, therefore, Platt, J.S.C., erred to hold that title

Whether or not the launch of Google SMS trader was a breach of the plaintiff’s rights? 3. What remedies are available to the parties? Issue No. 1: Whether or not

controlled by the Society. The rights assigned to the Society by this Deed are:(i) all their performing rights, and (ii) all film synchronization rights (subject to the undertaking

assignment the Applicant is said to have assumed the executive rights to control the distribution of the music rights, public performance for payment and broadcasting of the whole

pleaded are true” . And “if the plaint shows that a Plaintiff enjoyed a right, the right has been violated and the Defendant is liable, then a cause of action

various artistic works and owner of the copy rights there in if any. 2. Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiffs copy right. 3. Whether the plaintiff is liable under

a right; that the right has been violated; and finally that the Defendant is liable. The Plaintiff's rights are established under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act

enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated and that the defendant is liable; Auto Garage vs Motokov (No.3) [1971] E.A 514. Needless to mention, a right is a

infringe the Plaintiffs moral rights under section 10 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Moral rights include a right to claim authorship of the

73, 77(c) and (e) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006, the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Regulations SI 1/2010; Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act

first denying liability, claimed that they had not infringed the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff because they obtained them lawfully. It was the Defendant’s contention

the author of the work has moral rights while the owner of the works has economic rights. These two rights may be merged in one person but that

Constitution”) which provides in its preamble that “…while fully recognizing the sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunications and having regard to the growing

DATA PROTECTION 25. —Principles of personal data protection. 26. —Rights of a data subject. 27. —Exercise of rights by data subject. 28. —Collection of personal data. 29. —Duty

od to denote use that is not merely token, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the mark. Such use must be consistent with the essential function 

]] the applicants in the passing­off application is that it has acquired common­law rights to the mark "Value" simpliciter and that it is through the use of this wor

] done in the court below. There are a number of cases which recognise the right of a respondent, in spite of having filed an answering affidavit, to argue at[[

its mark, and that it, accordingly, had a prior right to the mark. The appellantargued that the registrations

] sold by others and the recognition of the general right of free competition, including the right to copy. (See: Cointreau et cie v SA Pagan Internat

] sold by others and the recognition of the general right of free competition, including the right to copy. (See: Cointreau et cie v SA Pagan Internat

e endorsement simply clarified and confirmed the monopoly in which it was seeking rights, whereas Iffco contended that by entering the endorsement the relevant trade marks[[1]

nce is raised, has lain by with full knowledge of his rights and of the infringement of those rights. See Policansky Bros v Hermann and Canard 1910 TPD 1265 at 1278

 These latter applications are still pending. During July 1996 Kappa assigned its rights in and to the trade mark applications to the applicant. The applicant procured 

justified as it was an expression of the Respondent's right to freedom of artistic activity contained in the right to freedom of speech and expression afforded to the[[1

stripe running from the upper left to the lower right. Finding that the test had been satisfied, the Court

Held ­ Section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 provides that the rights acquired by registration of a trade mark are infringed by the unauthorised use,

ear right flows from the registration of the mark. The respondent's use of the applicant's mark proves the second requirement, namely infringement of the clear right. The

] assumption that these constitute proceedings in rem and that the situs of the right is where the Page 447 of [1997] 4 All SA 444 (A) Registry is located,[[2]

 get­up and the business associated therewith to the detriment of the applicant's rights. As a result the respondent's use of the STAR get­up is likely to give 

] of the aggrieved party or is connected therewith. The rights infringed by passing­off are the applicant's rights in an existing goodwill. Before the likelihood or otherwise[

] 1993 ("the Act"). In 1999, Uthingo became the sole authorised licensee of the right to operate the National Lottery, which it did using the "Lotto" name. The appel

essential dispute between the parties concerned the right to use the name "Nino" or "Nino's" in the course

 it was submitted, will require the Registrar to decide whether Nestlé has acquired the right in this country to what was referred to as the "advertising goodwill" in the characters

[1]] on section 34(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The section provides that the rights acquired by registration of a trade mark shall be infringed by the unauthorised

General principle is that appeal court determines whether judgment appealed from is right or wrong according to the facts in existence at the time the judgment was 

order directing the entry of a disclaimer of "any right to the exclusive use of the term 'S­Curl' apart

] In the present appeal, the issue for determination was that of the competing rights of the Appellant and Respondent, for the registration of trademarks under section 17

y Christine Steiner "Intellectual property and the right to culture" in Intellectual Property and Human Rights (1998), the proceedings of a panel discussion published by

 sole right to distribute and sell the boats in Cape Town. The second applicant, represented by the first applicant, gave the first respondent such right without det

 assign, make over or in any way encumber" its intellectual property rights. Whether the rights vested in Herbal Zone is neither here nor there. Once Infitech signed[[

2]] to the Full Court1  was dismissed and the present appeal is an appeal of right.2 [2] The applications for registration predate the commencement of the 1993 Act a