Cameroon flagLaw relating to cybersecurity and cybercriminality 1
Document contents
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
Cameroon constitution
Document contents
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
Kenya flagNATIONAL ICT POLICY 2019
Document contents
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
Analysis
Uganda flagTecno Telecom Limited v Kigalo Investments Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagPurplemoon (U) Ltd v Numaa Industries Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagNice House of Plastics v Hamidu Lubega
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagNice House of Plastics Ltd v Hamidu Lubega
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagNice House of Plasstic Ltd v Moses Buule
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagNapro v Five Star Industries Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagNanoomal Issardas Motiwalla (U) Ltd v Sophy Nantongo & 3 others
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagNairobi Java House v Mandela Auto Spares
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagMuse AF Enterprises Co. Ltd v Billen General Trading Ltd & 2 others
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagLeaf Tobacco & Commodities (U) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs (Uganda Revenue Authority)
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagKampala Stocks Supermarket Co. Ltd v Seven Days International Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagInterconsumer Products Ltd v Nice and Soft Investments (2003) Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagColgate Palmolive Co. Ltd v Sombe Supermarket Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagBritania Allied Industries v Cogef Impex Limited
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagAnglo Fabrics (Bolton) Ltd & Anor v African Queen Ltd & Anor 2008
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagBritania Allied Industries Ltd v Aya Biscuits
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagThe Registered Trustees of Kampala Institute v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagByte Legion Technologies v MTN (Uganda) Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagUganda Performing Rights Society v MTN
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagUganda Performing Rights Society Ltd v Fred Mukubira
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagSylvia Nabiteeko Katende v Bank of Uganda
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagStella Atal v Anne Abels Kiruta
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagSikuku Agaitano v Uganda Baati
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagProf. George W. Kakoma v The Attorney General
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagAngella Katatumba v The ACCU
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagBwanika & 16 others v Uganda Registration Services Bureau
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagObsessions Co. Ltd v Warid Telecom (Uganda) Ltd & Dmark Co. Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagAL Hajj Nasser Ntege Sebagala v MTN Uganda Ltd and SMS Media Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Uganda flagMTN Uganda Ltd v Uganda Telecom Ltd
Document contents
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
Case Law
Kenya flagKenya Data Protection Act, 2019
Document contents
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
South Africa flagWestminster Tobacco Co (Cape Town and London) (Pty) Ltd v Philip Morris Products SA and others [2017
Document contents
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 
Case Law
South Africa flagValue Car Group Ltd and another v Value Car Hire (Pty) Ltd and others [2005] 4 All SA 474 (C)
Document contents
]] 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
Case Law
South Africa flagValentino Globe BV v Phillips and another [1998] 4 All SA 1 (A)
Document contents
] 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[[
Case Law
South Africa flagTurbek Trading CC v A and D Spitz Ltd and another [2010] 2 All SA 284 (SCA)
Case Summary
its mark, and that it, accordingly, had a prior right to the mark. The appellantargued that the registrations
Case Law
South Africa flagTriomed (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group PLC and others [2001] 2 All SA 126 (T) 1
Document contents
] 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
Case Law
South Africa flagTriomed (Pty) Ltd v Beecham Group PLC and others [2001] 2 All SA 126 (T)
Document contents
] 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
Case Law
South Africa flagSociété des Produits Nestlé SA and another v International Foodstuffs Co and others [2015] 1 All SA
Document contents
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]
Case Law
South Africa flagSafari Surf Shop CC v Heavywater and others [1996] 4 All SA 316 (D)
Document contents
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
Case Law
South Africa flagSAFA v Stanton Woodrush (Pty) Ltd t a Stan Smidt & Sons and another [2002] 2 All SA 617 (T)
Document contents
 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 
Case Law
South Africa flagSAB International t a Sabmark International v Laugh It Off Promotions [2003] 2 All SA 454 (C)
Document contents
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
Case Law
South Africa flagPuma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport v Rampar Trading (Pty) Ltd and others [2011] 2 All SA 290 (SCA)
Case Summary
stripe running from the upper left to the lower right. Finding that the test had been satisfied, the Court
Case Law
South Africa flagPuma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport v Global Warming (Pty) Ltd [2010] 1 All SA 25 (SCA)
Document contents
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,
Case Law
South Africa flagProfessional Provident Society of South Africa v P.P.I. Makelaars and another [1996] 2 All SA 206 (W
Document contents
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
Case Law
South Africa flagPPI Makelaars and another v Professional Provident Society of South Africa [1997] 4 All SA 444 (A)
Document contents
] 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]
Case Law
South Africa flagPioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Bothaville Milling (Pty) Ltd [2014] 2 All SA 282 (SCA)
Document contents
 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 
Case Law
South Africa flagOnline Lottery Services (Pty) Ltd v National Lotteries Board and others [2007] 1 All SA 618 (T)
Document contents
] 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[
Case Law
South Africa flagOn Line Lottery Services (Pty) Ltd v National Lotteries Board [2009] 4 All SA 470 (SCA)
Document contents
] 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
Case Law
South Africa flagNino’s Coffee Bar & Restaurant CC v Nino’s Italian Coffee & Sandwich Bar CC and another [1998] 3 All
Case Summary
essential dispute between the parties concerned the right to use the name "Nino" or "Nino's" in the course
Case Law
South Africa flagNestlé (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Mars Incorporated [2001] 4 All SA 315 (A)
Document contents
 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
Case Law
South Africa flagMettenheimer and another v Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC and others [2014] 1 All SA 645 (SCA)
Document contents
[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
Case Law
South Africa flagMcDonald’s Corporation v Joburgers Drive Inn Restaurant (Pty) Ltd and another; McDonald’s Corporatio
Document contents
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 
Case Law
South Africa flagLuster Products Inc v Magic Style Sales CC [1997] 1 All SA 327 (A)
Case Summary
order directing the entry of a disclaimer of "any right to the exclusive use of the term 'S­Curl' apart
Case Law
South Africa flagLevi Strauss & Co v Coconut Trouser Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd [2001] 4 All SA 1 (A)
Document contents
] 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
Case Law
South Africa flagLaugh It Off Promotions CC v SA Breweries International (Finance) BV t a Sabmark International [2004
Document contents
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
Case Law
South Africa flagHeyneman and another v Waterfront Marine CC and others [2005] 2 All SA 382 (C)
Document contents
 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
Case Law
South Africa flagHerbal Zone (Pty) Ltd and others v Infitech Technologies (Pty) Ltd and others [2017] 2 All SA 347 (S
Document contents
 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[[
Case Law
South Africa flagFirst National Bank of SA Ltd v Barclays Bank plc and another [2003] 2 All SA 1 (SCA)
Document contents
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
Case Law
South Africa flagEtraction (Pty) Ltd v Tyrecor (Pty) Ltd [2014] 2 All SA 90 (WCC)
Document contents
reserve common law rights that are antecedent to the rights of the registered proprietor". The Act does not invest a prior user with a right ­ it derives from[[
Case Law
South Africa flagDinnermates (Tvl) CC v Piquante Brands International & Anor
Document contents
in Roman block capitals and underlined. The device of a pepper appears to the right of the mark, almost as a full stop after the word MATES. [21] In opposing
Case Law
South Africa flagDiageo North America Inc and another v DGB (Pty) Ltd [2006] 3 All SA 529 (T)
Document contents
[1]] the market. Editor's Summary The first applicant was the owner of all the rights in and to the get­up of its "spirit cooler" beverages sold under the trade
Case Law
South Africa flagDaimler Chrysler Aktiengesellschaft and another v Afinta Motor Corporation (Pty) Ltd [2001] 2 All SA
Document contents
 ­ Infringement of ­ Requirements ­ Onus on complainant. [2]  Intellectual property rights ­ Unlawful competition ­ Application for interdict ­ Use of competitor's parts and
Case Law
South Africa flagCowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd [2001] 4 All SA 242 (A)
Document contents
 a notice of appeal. An examination of the act established that the Appellant's right of appeal was not subject to the need to apply for leave to appeal. The[[1
Case Law
South Africa flagCommercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft [2007] 4 All SA 1331 (
Document contents
(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 which sets out how trade mark rights are infringed. The court a quo found that the appellant's use of the respondent
Case Law
South Africa flagCommercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd v Baker Street Trust and others; In re Jennings NO and others v Comm 1
Document contents
the applicant; it has the constitutional right to challenge in court what it regards as an unfair limitation to its rights. Lastly, I have considered the 
Case Law
South Africa flagCochrane Steel Products (Pty) Ltd v M Systems Group (Pty) Ltd and another [2015] 2 All SA 162 (GJ)
Document contents
 Article 5, which is entitled "Rights conferred by a Trade Mark", provides that a registered trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein who shall be e
Case Law
South Africa flagCentury City Apartments Property Services CC and another v Century City Property Owners’ Association
Document contents
 Wrongful acts by third parties cannot in general destroy rights. This truism also applies to trade mark rights. It was in that context that Luster (supra) a
Case Law
South Africa flagCape Town Lodge CC v Registrar of Close Corporations and another [2008] 2 All SA 34 (C)
Document contents
 should be upheld because of the Objector's extensive common­law rights and registered trade mark rights in and to the trade­mark Town Lodge and various other trade 
Case Law
South Africa flagCadbury (Pty) Ltd v Beacon Sweets & Chocolates (Pty) Ltd and another [2000] 2 All SA 1 (A)
Case Summary
the registration of the trademark did not give a right to the Respondent to the exclusive use of the name
Case Law
South Africa flagCadac (Pty) Ltd v Weber Stephen Products Company and others [2011] 1 All SA 343 (SCA)
Document contents
[4]] not permit a rights holder to steal a march on an alleged infringer in order to settle a bona fide dispute about the boundaries of rights. Those disputes s
Case Law
South Africa flagButterworths Publishers (Pty) Ltd v Jacobsens Group (Pty) Ltd and another [2005] 2 All SA 588 (T)
Document contents
[4]] it violates a proprietary right in respect of the name or trade mark. It is unlawful because it interferes with a person's right to carry on business freely,[[4
Case Law
South Africa flagBlue Lion Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v National Brands Ltd [2001] 4 All SA 235 (A)
Document contents
entation of a baker and the name Bakers in prominent black letters. On the right hand side, in light brown there is a representation of a scattering of Baker's[
Case Law
South Africa flagBergkelder Beperk v Vredendal Koöp Wynmakery and others [2006] 4 All SA 215 (SCA) 1
Document contents
 give effect to the rights of registered trade mark holders wherever appropriate, it should also bear in mind the fact that such rights should not be permitted 
Case Law
South Africa flagBeecham Group PLC and another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd [2002] 4 All SA 193 (SCA)
Document contents
[2]] principles (the right to compete and the right to copy) and intellectual property rights, and also between different types of intellectual property rights. There is an[[2
Case Law
South Africa flagArjo Wiggins Ltd v Idem (Pty) Ltd and another [2002] 2 All SA 147 (A)
Document contents
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Section 34(1) provides: (1)    The rights acquired by registration of a trade mark shall be infringed by ­  (a)    the[[7
Case Law
South Africa flagAM Moolla Group Ltd and others v The GAP Inc and others [2005] 4 All SA 245 (SCA)
Document contents
om asserting a proprietary right in a trade mark in relation to which no one else has in the same territory asserted a similar right.'" Nicholas AJA also cited
Case Law
South Africa flagAlbion Chemical Company (Pty) Ltd v FAM Products CC [2004] 1 All SA 194 (C)
Document contents
 Blax"). The Applicant contended that the Respondent was infringing the Applicant's rights as the registered proprietor of the Albex trade mark, and was passing off goods
Case Law
South Africa flagAbbott Laboratories and another v UAP Crop Care (Pty) Ltd and others [1999] 1 All SA 502 (C)
Document contents
9]] its trade mark rights have been infringed and that consequently it has established a clear right or at the very least a prima facie right to the relief sought
Case Law
South Africa flagAdcock Ingram Consumer Products Limited v Dhansooklal Jeenabhai Mody t a Black Magic [1997] 3 All SA
Document contents
flict with other existing trade marks and also did not broaden or extend its rights. The Registrar of Trade Marks refused the application on the basis that the 
Case Law
South Africa flagAdidas AG and another v Pepkor Retail Ltd [2012] 1 All SA 636 (WCC)
Document contents
idas and other intellectual property rights globally which includes the enforcement of Adidas trade mark and other intellectual property rights. [4] The second applicant is 
Case Law
South Africa flagAdcock Ingram Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd and another v Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd and another [2012
Document contents
 Section 8 of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 gives the patient the right to participate in any decision affecting his or her personal health and treatment.[[
Case Law
South Africa flagWeltevrede Nursery (Pty) Ltd v Keith Kirsten’s (Pty) Ltd and others [2004] 1 All SA 181 (SCA)
Case Summary
plant breeder's right. Description of new variety Court held that Plant Breeder's right was granted consequent
Case Law
South Africa flagSyntheta (Pty) Ltd v Janssen Pharmaceutica NV and another [1998] 4 All SA 445 (A)
Document contents
Compulsory licence in case of abuse of patent rights.  ­ (1) Any interested person who can show that the rights in a patent are being abused may apply to
Case Law
South Africa flagSunsmart Products (Pty) Ltd v Flag and Flagpole Industries (Pty) Ltd t a National Flag [2006] 3 All
Document contents
Patent rights In terms of section 45(1) of the Patents Act, the patentee has, subject to the provisions of the Act, for the duration of the patent, the right to[[
Case Law
South Africa flagSHFL Entertainment Inc (formerly Shuffle Master Inc) v TCS John Huxley (Pty) Ltd and another [2014]
Document contents
 this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and the applicant has the right to approach this Court to apply for the amendment of the patent. [5] The f
Case Law
South Africa flagPharma Dynamics (Pty) Ltd v Bayer Pharma AG (formerly Bayer Schering Pharma AG) and another [2014] 4
Document contents
 it was of cardinal importance to ensure, not only that each tablet contained the right dosage at the point of administration, but also that as little as possible of[[
Case Law
South Africa flagOrica Mining Services SA (Pty) Ltd v Elbroc Mining Products (Pty) Ltd [2017] 2 All SA 796 (SCA)
Document contents
4]] the word because it sought "to include a carriage which is offset at a right angle to the co­linear line between the pair of telescopic props at an undefine
Case Law
South Africa flagMurray v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd and another [2009] 1 All SA 381 (T)
Case Summary
the patentee, for the duration of the patent, the right to exclude other persons from making, using, exercising
Case Law

90 of 735 documents