Share
In Re: Kenya Farmers Association (Co Operative) Limited; In Re: Trade Marks Ordinance 1930 (C.C. 262/1932.) [1933] EACA 10 (1 January 1933)
- Citation
- [1933] EACA 10
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya)
- Case number
- C.C. 262/1932.
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Lucie-Smith Ag CJ (Kenya)
- Case number
- C.C. 262/1932.
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for registration of the trade mark 'K. F. A.' in the first instance. Jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, as provided by section 13(3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, and Rule 90 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1931. The application was therefore premature and had to be dismissed. The statutory framework clearly delineates the Registrar's primary role in the registration process, with the Court's involvement limited to appellate review. The Court relied on both the local Ordinance and analogous English statutory provisions and case law to reinforce this interpretation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.
Court disposition
application dismissed as premature; no order as to costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed as being premature.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kenya Farmers' Association (Co-operative) Limited
Applicant Counsel: HopleyRegistrar of Trade Marks
Respondent Counsel: Registrar of Trade Marks (in person)03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Motion for Order on Registrability of Trade Mark
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for registration of a trade mark in the first instance under section 13 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930.
- 02
Whether the application for registration of the mark 'K. F. A.' is properly before the Court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought an order declaring 'K. F. A.' a distinctive mark and registrable as its trade mark under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930. Counsel referred to English case law and statutory provisions analogous to the Ugandan Ordinance, arguing for the Court's jurisdiction to grant the order.
- Respondent
- The Registrar of Trade Marks, appearing in person, maintained that the Court's jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar, not in the first instance, and that the application was premature.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, section 13(3); Trade Marks Rules, 1931, Rule 90
The Court's jurisdiction under section 13 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
- 02
Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, section 13; Trade Marks Rules, 1931, Rules 15-34
The procedure for registration of a trade mark is governed by section 13 of the Ordinance and Rules 15 to 34 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1931.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for registration of the trade mark 'K. F. A.' in the first instance. Jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, as provided by section 13(3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, and Rule 90 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1931. The application was therefore premature and had to be dismissed. The statutory framework clearly delineates the Registrar's primary role in the registration process, with the Court's involvement limited to appellate review. The Court relied on both the local Ordinance and analogous English statutory provisions and case law to reinforce this interpretation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.
Obiter and limits
- The duties of the Registrar as towards the public on the application are set out in the judgments of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline and Lord Parker of Waddington in Registrar of Trade Marks v. W. and G. Du Cros, Ltd. (1913), A. C. 624, at pp. 629 and 633 respectively.
- The argument of Sir Rufus Isaacs in that case makes interesting reading.
Court disposition
application dismissed as premature; no order as to costs
- The application is dismissed as being premature.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
ORIGINAL CIVIL.
Before LUCIE-SMITH, Ag. C. J.
IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA FARMERS' ASSOCIA-TION (CO-OPERATIVE) LIMITED
$and$
IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE, 1930.
C. C. $262/1932$ .
- Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930—Section 10—Registration of distinctive mark-Procedure-Section 18-Trade Marks Rules, 1931. - Held (4-12-33).—That the Court has no jurisdiction in the first in-<br>stance to entertain an application under section 13 of the Trade<br>Marks Ordinance, 1930. The Court's jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
Hopley for Applicant.—Referred to Maxwell v. Hogg (1866), II Ch. App. Cases, p. 307; In re Applications of W. and G. Du Cros. Ltd. (1912), 1 Ch. Div. 644; The Registrar of Trade Marks v. W. and G. Du Cros, Ltd. (1913), A. C. 624; In re Birmingham Small Arms Company's Application (1907), 2 Ch. Div.
396.
Registrar of Trade Marks in person.
JUDGMENT.—This matter comes before the Court by way of motion, and is an application for an order that the letters " K. F. A." is a distinctive mark under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, and that the said mark shall be registrable as the trade mark of the applicants.
I find that this Court at present has no jurisdiction in the matter, as the Court's jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, vide section 13 (3) of the Ordinance and Rule 90 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1931.
The procedure to be adopted on an application for registration is laid down in section 13 of the Ordinance (which is word for word the same as section 12 of the English Act) and in the Trade Marks Rules, 1931, Rules 15 to 34.
The duties of the Registrar as towards the public on the application are set out in the judgments of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline and Lord Parker of Waddington in Registrar of Trade Marks v. W. and G. Du Cros, Ltd. (1913), A. C. 624, at pp. 629 and 633 respectively. The argument of Sir Rufus Isaacs in that case makes interesting reading.
The application must be dismissed as being premature.
$\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F} \mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{A}}$
No order as to costs.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.