Uganda
Sign in
Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Intellectual Property [2024] UGRSB 13

Nanoomal Issardas Motiwala (U) Limited v Himalaya Global Holdings Limited (Trademark Application 40921 of 2010)

Nanoomal Issardas Motiwala (U) Limited v Himalaya Global Holdings Limited (Trademark Application 40921 of 2010) [2024] UGRSB 13 (12 June 2024)

Opposition to registration of EVECARE in class 5 succeeded because the mark was found confusingly similar to the earlier EVE trademark.

  • Trademark Registration
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Distinctiveness
  • Pharmaceutical Trademarks
  • Trademark-opposition
  • Likelihood-of-confusion
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2024] UGRSB 2

East African Roofing Systems Limited v Metal Wood Industries Limited (Trademark Application 72822 of 2021)

East African Roofing Systems Limited v Metal Wood Industries Limited (Trademark Application 72822 of 2021) [2024] UGRSB 2 (7 February 2024)

The Registrar dismissed an opposition to the CROCODILE trademark applications, holding that the marks were not similar and that trade dress or passing off issues were outside the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

  • Trademark Registration
  • Opposition Proceedings
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Distinctiveness
  • Bad Faith
  • Registrar Jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2023] UGRSB 3

Uganda Young Men's Christian Association v The World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations (Trademark Application 67455 of 2020)

Uganda Young Men's Christian Association v The World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations (Trademark Application 67455 of 2020) [2023] UGRSB 3 (1 December 2023)

The Applicant filed for the disputed mark before the Opponent registered its mark in Uganda, and at the time of filing, no confusingly similar mark existed on the register. Trademark rights are territorial, and the Opponent's registration in Switzerland does not automatically confer rights in Uganda. Section 44 of the Trademarks Act protects marks registered in the country of origin only if the Opponent meets all statutory criteria, including that the Applicant has not used the mark continuously prior to the Opponent's registration in the country of origin. The Applicant demonstrated continuo…

  • Trademark Registration
  • Territoriality Of Rights
  • Well Known Marks
  • Country Of Origin Protection
  • Distinctiveness
  • Continuous Use Exception
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2023] UGRSB 11

Procter & Gamble Company v Momeasy Enterprises Limited (Trademark Application 73609 of 2021)

Procter & Gamble Company v Momeasy Enterprises Limited (Trademark Application 73609 of 2021) [2023] UGRSB 11 (24 October 2023)

The Registrar found that the applicant's marks, when assessed as a whole, are visually and phonetically distinguishable from the opponent's marks. The resemblance between the applicant's stylized 'M' and the opponent's heart-rayed device was not sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion, especially considering the color combinations and overall presentation. The goods, while both targeting baby care, fall into different NICE classes and serve different purposes, further reducing the risk of confusion. The applicant's mark was found to be sufficiently distinctive and not descriptive or co…

  • Trademark Registration
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Distinctiveness
  • Bad Faith In Trademark
  • Permitted User
  • Territoriality Principle
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2023] UGRSB 12

V.G Keshwala & Sons Limited v Nintendo Company Limited (Trademark Registration 56916 of 2016)

V.G Keshwala & Sons Limited v Nintendo Company Limited (Trademark Registration 56916 of 2016) [2023] UGRSB 12 (23 August 2023)

The opposition to registration of the mark POKEMON succeeded. The registrar found Nintendo had standing, the marks were identical, and registration would confuse consumers.

  • Trademark Registration
  • Well Known Marks
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Distinctiveness
  • International Conventions
  • Remedies And Costs
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2023] UGRSB 10

Wave Intellectual Property Inc. v Agaba (Trademark Application 74413 of 2022)

Wave Intellectual Property Inc. v Agaba (Trademark Application 74413 of 2022) [2023] UGRSB 10 (7 June 2023)

The Registrar found that the applicant's 'Wave Express' mark is confusingly similar to the opponent's 'Wave' mark, particularly due to the dominant 'wave' element and phonetic similarity, which is likely to cause confusion among consumers in class 36 services. Although the opponent's mark is not registered in Uganda, it is registered in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, and the opponent provided an undertaking to register in Uganda as required by section 44(3)(b) of the Trademarks Act. The applicant failed to show prior use or application before the opponent's registration in the co…

  • Trademark Registration
  • Opposition Proceedings
  • Well Known Marks
  • Territoriality Principle
  • Paris Convention
  • Distinctiveness
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2021] UGRSB 2

NBA Properties, Inc. v Monster Energy Company (Trademark Application 51486 of 2014)

NBA Properties, Inc. v Monster Energy Company (Trademark Application 51486 of 2014) [2021] UGRSB 2 (15 February 2021)

The Registrar dismissed Monster Energy’s opposition and allowed NBA Properties to proceed with registering TORONTO RAPTORS for class 41 services.

  • Trademark Registration
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Distinctiveness Of Mark
  • Similarity Of Goods And Services
  • Trademark-opposition
  • Likelihood-of-confusion
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2020] UGRSB 1

Liberty (ICD) Limited v Liberty Group Limited (Trademark Application 59775 of 2017)

Liberty (ICD) Limited v Liberty Group Limited (Trademark Application 59775 of 2017) [2020] UGRSB 1 (12 March 2020)

The Assistant Registrar dismissed an opposition to the mark LIBERTY (ICD) LTD, finding no likely confusion with LIBERTY and allowing registration with a service limitation.

  • Trademark Registration
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Distinctiveness
  • Opposition Proceedings
  • Trademark-opposition
  • Likelihood-of-confusion
Read case analysis
Intellectual Property [2019] UGRSB 1

Delight Auto Co. Limited v Delight Co. Limited (Trademark Application 56975 of 2016)

Delight Auto Co. Limited v Delight Co. Limited (Trademark Application 56975 of 2016) [2019] UGRSB 1 (15 June 2019)

The opposition to registration of DELIGHTS AUTOMART failed. The registrar found the mark registrable, subject to disclaimer of “AUTOMART” and payment of fees.

  • Trademark Registration
  • Country Of Origin
  • Distinctiveness Of Mark
  • Priority Of Application
  • Likelihood Of Confusion
  • Trademark-opposition
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [1936] EACA 63

Essaji v Karachiwalla Limited (C.A. 8/1936.)

Essaji v Karachiwalla Limited (C.A. 8/1936.) [1936] EACA 63 (1 January 1936)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant could trade under his own name, which he had long been known by, and that passing-off was not proved.

  • Passing Off
  • Trade Names
  • Business Reputation
  • Injunctions
  • Fraud Pleading
  • Distinctiveness
Read case analysis

About this JurisAssist collection

Uganda decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.