requirements under section 7 of that Act. Since the websites from which annexture “XH1” to the
affidavit in rebuttal was generated is clearly indicated on the document as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_kong, I believe one could easily access the same to verify the
information, which in my opinion, is even common knowledge. I find that this annexture passes
the test for authenticating data messages and I rule that it will be admitted and relied upon.
As regards the documents attached to the affidavit in reply as “C1”, “C2”, and “D2” which is
written in Chinese and the English translation attached as “C” and “D”, they relate to activities of
a Government department that need to be authenticated by that department. The website from
which it was obtained was not even stated in the affidavit or indicated on the document itself. I
would therefore be reluctant to admit such a document and rely upon it. In the circumstances, I
find that their authenticity is doubted as the respondent has not discharged the burden of proving
its authenticity under section 8 (2) of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2011. I accordingly rule
that they are not admissible and this court will not rely on them.
On locus standi of the applicant, I am inclined to agree with counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is an aggrieved person who can bring an application under sections 45 and 46 of the
Trademarks Act, 2010. The applicant demonstrated that it is the registered owner of TECNO
trademark in Hong Kong and it manufactures and deals in TECNO phones in Hong Kong, China
and Uganda where it has been supplying TECNO phones prior to the registration of TECNO
mark in Uganda by the respondent. I find and rule that it is an aggrieved person.
Having disposed of the above preliminary issues, I now turn to consider the main issues that
were raised by counsel for the applicant. The first issue which I will deal with is whether the
respondent’s mark can be removed from the register of trademarks in Uganda upon proof of
prior registration in a country or place of origin of the goods. Section 45(1) of the Trademarks
Act, 2010 under which this application was brought provides that:“Subject to subsection (3), the court may, on application in writing within seven
years from the registration in Uganda of a trademark relating to goods by a
person aggrieved by registration, remove that trademark from the register if it is
proved to the satisfaction of the court that the trademark is identical with or
nearly resembles a trademark which was, prior to the registration in Uganda of
the trademark, registered in respect of(a) The same goods;
(a) The same description of goods; or
(b) Services or a description of services which are associated with those goods or
goods of that description,
in a country or place from which the goods originate”.
It was submitted for the applicant at length that it is the owner of a trademark that was registered
in Hong Kong, China in 2005 under registration No. 300505773 in respect of goods in class 9.
An original copy of the certificate was tendered in court to prove this. The main issue of