He deposed that the trademark registered by the respondent was similar and identical to the
trademark first registered by the applicant in Hong Kong in all aspects as it was in respect of
goods in class 9 inclusive of phones and other electronic goods which constitute the main item of
manufacture in China and exports to Uganda. Further that TECNO phones had been in the
Ugandan market prior to registration of the mark 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 authorized the respondent, ostensibly or
explicitly to use the mark TECNO and the respondent is neither the applicant’s agent, nor a
manufacturer, nor a dealer in, nor a user of TECNO products. Further that the registration of
TECNO trademark by the respondent in Uganda was done in bad faith for speculative and
extortionate purposes as borne out by the letter from the respondent’s lawyers hastily inviting
the applicant’s agent for an out of court settlement.
He deposed that from the time the respondent registered the trademark and within one month
leading up to this application there had been no bona-fide usage of the same by the respondent.
Further that this confirmed that the registration of the mark was without a bona-fide intention
that it would be used in relation to those goods in class 9.
The deponent averred that the applicant had up to the time of bringing this application been in
bona-fide use of the trademark in Uganda as evidenced by annextures “A” and “F” to the
affidavit. Further that to enhance its protection and also consolidate its market presence, the
applicant would register the TECNO trademark in Uganda as soon as that of the respondent was
removed from the register and an undertaking to that effect had already been given to the
Registrar of Trademarks as per annexture “I”.
I will highlight the chronology of events that took place from the time this application first came
up for hearing because I will have to determine some preliminary issue on filing of pleadings.
When this application came up for hearing on 13th June 2011, counsel for the respondent
informed court that he had not yet filed an affidavit in reply because the Managing Director of
the respondent company was on a business trip in Juba. He applied for a short adjournment to
enable him file affidavit in reply. Counsel for the applicant conceded to application and it was
allowed. The matter was adjourned to 27th June 2011 at 2.30 pm for hearing.
An affidavit in reply and opposition to the application sworn by Mr. XIE XI HU, the Managing
Director of the respondent company was filed on 27th June 2011. The deponent denied most of
the averments in the affidavit in support and contended that there was no evidence to show that
the applicant company was registered and located in Hong Kong or manufactured mobile phones
called TECNO. Further that the phones in Uganda marked TECNO including those imported by
the applicant are indicated to be manufactured in China and not Hong Kong as evidenced by