Share
Kifaru Chemicals Limited v Max Imports & Exporters Limited (Trademark Application 68884 of 2020) [2023] UGRSB 4 (25 January 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] UGRSB 4
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Uganda Registration Services Bureau
- Panel
- Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer
- Case number
- Trademark Application 68884 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Uganda Registration Services Bureau
- Panel
- Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer
- Case number
- Trademark Application 68884 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Registrar found that service of the hearing notice was duly effected on the opponent's advocates, as evidenced by the affidavit of service and the stamped copy of the notice. The opponent failed to appear or send representation at the scheduled hearing, nor did they file any further evidence or submissions. In accordance with the Trademarks Act and established practice, the Registrar considered the opposition abandoned due to lack of prosecution and dismissed it. The applicant is therefore entitled to proceed with registration of the trademark, subject to compliance with statutory requirements. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
opposition dismissed for abandonment; applicant may proceed with registration
Orders
- The opposition to trademark application No. UG/T/2020/68884 is dismissed as abandoned.
- No order as to costs.
- The applicant is free to proceed with registration upon complying with statutory requirements.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kifaru Chemicals Limited
Applicant Counsel: Kirabo Marion LisaMax Imports and Exports Limited
Respondent Counsel: TASKK Advocates03
Procedural history
Posture
Trademark Opposition / Ruling on Opposition
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the opposition to trademark application No. UG/T/2020/68884 was properly served and prosecuted.
- 02
Whether the opposition should be dismissed for non-appearance and lack of prosecution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that service of the hearing notice was duly effected on the opponent's advocates, as evidenced by the affidavit of service and the stamped copy of the notice. The applicant submitted that the opponent failed to appear or send representation, and therefore the opposition should be considered abandoned.
- Respondent
- The opponent did not appear, file further evidence, or submit arguments in response to the hearing notice. No representation was made at the hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 45 of the Trademarks Act, 2010
Opposition proceedings may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the opponent fails to appear or take necessary steps after proper service of hearing notice.
- 02
Uganda Registration Services Bureau Practice Directions
Effective service of hearing notice is sufficient to proceed with dismissal for abandonment if the opponent does not respond.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Registrar found that service of the hearing notice was duly effected on the opponent's advocates, as evidenced by the affidavit of service and the stamped copy of the notice. The opponent failed to appear or send representation at the scheduled hearing, nor did they file any further evidence or submissions. In accordance with the Trademarks Act and established practice, the Registrar considered the opposition abandoned due to lack of prosecution and dismissed it. The applicant is therefore entitled to proceed with registration of the trademark, subject to compliance with statutory requirements. No order as to costs was made.
Obiter and limits
- The Registrar notes that parties must diligently prosecute their opposition proceedings to avoid dismissal for abandonment.
- Proper service of hearing notices is critical to ensuring procedural fairness in trademark opposition matters.
Court disposition
opposition dismissed for abandonment; applicant may proceed with registration
- The opposition to trademark application No. UG/T/2020/68884 is dismissed as abandoned.
- No order as to costs.
- The applicant is free to proceed with registration upon complying with statutory requirements.
Source and reliance status
Uganda Registration Services Bureau
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.
Uganda Registration Services Bureau
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
UGANDA REGISTRATION SERVICES BUREAU
THE TRADEMARKS ACT, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. UG/T/2020/68884 "KCL COLT" IN CLASS 9 BY KIFARU CHEMICALS LIMITED
AND
IN THE MATTER OF OPPOSITION MAX IMPORTS AND EXPORTS LIMITED
Ruling delivered on the 25<sup>th</sup> January 2023
BEFORE: BIRUNGI DENIS: ASST. REGISTRAR TRADEMARKS
*Representation*
Kirabo Marion Lisa—for the applicant
- 1. The applicant herein filed their application for registration of trademark "KCL COLT" in class 9 on 9th September 2020. The application was published on 25<sup>th</sup> September 2020 in Gazette volume CXIII No.55 - 2. On $2^{nd}$ November 2020, the opponent filed its opposition to the registration of the applicant's mark on grounds of similarity with their own registered mark. The opposition was effectively transmitted to the applicant by letter dated 10<sup>th</sup> November 2020 and the applicant filed a counterstatement on 21<sup>st</sup> December 2020. Subsequently, the counterstatement was transmitted to the opponent by email dated 9<sup>th</sup> February 2021 requiring the opponent to file evidence. - 3. The respective statutory declarations as evidence were filed and the matter was set down for hearing. The last hearing notice was issued on 28<sup>th</sup> November 2022 requiring parties to appear for hearing on the 25<sup>th</sup> January 2023 at 10am. Counsel for the applicant appeared while counsel
for the opponent did not, neither did they send an advocate to hold brief. Both applicant and the opponent were not present.
- 4. Counsel for the applicant adduced evidence by way of affidavit of service tendered before the Registrar to prove effective service of the hearing notice. Indeed a copy of the notice is stamped as received on the 29<sup>th</sup> November 2022 by TASKK Advocates, advocates representing the opponent. - 5. Having been satisfied that service of the hearing notice was duly effected, I accordingly declare that the Registrar from the date hereof, considers the opposition abandoned and accordingly dismisses it with no order as to costs. The applicant is free to proceed with registration upon complying with statutory requirements.
I so order,
Given under my hand, this $2s^+$ anyant $_d$ day of 2023 Birungi Denis Ass. Registrar of Trademarks
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.