Uganda Case Law

Elite Gold Limited v Indo-Bali Distributors Limited (032264; 043533; Trademark Registration 45697 of 2024)

Elite Gold Limited v Indo-Bali Distributors Limited (032264; 043533; Trademark Registration 45697 of 2024) [2025] UGRSB 6 (1 April 2025)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

032264 ; 043533 ; Trademark Registration 45697 of 2024

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

The Registrar found that jurisdiction to cancel trademarks based on prior foreign registration under section 45 of the Trademarks Act lies exclusively with the High Court, not the Registrar. The applicant failed to prove fraud or bad faith by the Respondent in registering the disputed trademarks. The Respondent's actions were consistent with the principle of territoriality, as the applicant had no trademark protection in Uganda at the time of registration. The applicant's allegations of fraud and bad faith were not sufficiently particularized or supported by evidence. The Registrar concluded…

Source excerpt

• Trademark Registration
• Bad Faith In Trademark
• Fraud In Trademark Registration
• Territoriality Principle
• Trademark Cancellation
• Registrar Jurisdiction

Uganda Young Men’s Christian Association v World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations (Trademark Registration 68118 of 2020)

Uganda Young Men’s Christian Association v World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations (Trademark Registration 68118 of 2020) [2025] UGRSB 7 (1 April 2025)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Registration 68118 of 2020

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

The Registrar cancelled TM 68118 for YMCA, finding it was registered in error because an earlier application for the same mark and services was already pending.

• Trademark Registration
• Rectification Of Register
• Priority Of Application
• Territoriality Principle
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Cancellation Proceedings

Krystalline Salt Limited v S.D.T Group of Companies (Trademark Application 40232 of 2009)

Krystalline Salt Limited v S.D.T Group of Companies (Trademark Application 40232 of 2009) [2024] UGRSB 11 (18 April 2024)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 40232 of 2009

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

The opposition to registration of the SAFFI trademark in Uganda was dismissed because the opponent lacked locus standi and did not meet section 44 requirements.

• Trademark Registration
• Territoriality Principle
• Bad Faith In Trademark
• Well Known Marks
• Opposition Procedure
• Trademark-opposition

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)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 73609 of 2021

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

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…

Source excerpt

• Trademark Registration
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Distinctiveness
• Bad Faith In Trademark
• Permitted User
• Territoriality Principle

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)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 74413 of 2022

Judge

Agaba Gilbert - Director Intellectual Property

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…

Source excerpt

• Trademark Registration
• Opposition Proceedings
• Well Known Marks
• Territoriality Principle
• Paris Convention
• Distinctiveness