Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Habomugisha v Sewankambo (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1116 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 373 (20 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to join Kangaroo Brands Ltd Kenya as a defendant, finding its presence was not necessary for resolving the trademark dispute.
Modino Furniture Company Limited v Homeart Uganda Limited and Another (Consolidated Civil Suit 427 of 2020; Consolidated Civil Suit 724 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 325 (11 October 2024)
The court held that Modino Furniture Company Limited is the lawful and registered proprietor of the DOGTAS trademark in Uganda, having complied with all statutory requirements for registration. The Defendants failed to object to the Plaintiff's registration or apply for local protection, and international registration does not confer automatic rights in Uganda. The Defendants' use of the DOGTAS mark without authorization from the registered owner constitutes trademark infringement under Ugandan law. The franchise agreement between the Defendants is inconsequential in the absence of local regi…
Source excerpt
Sanlam General Assurance Uganda Limited v ICEA General Insurance Company (U) Limited (Trademark Application 55973 of 2016) [2024] UGRSB 17 (23 July 2024)
The Registrar of Companies lacks jurisdiction to determine complaints based on alleged trademark infringement or passing off arising from a company's registered name. The Companies Act does not empower the Registrar to adjudicate on matters governed by the Trademarks Act or common law torts such as passing off. The applicant's complaint, which seeks to bar the respondent from using the word 'LION' in its name on grounds of trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion, falls outside the statutory mandate of the Registrar. The appropriate forum for such claims is the High Court, which has…
Source excerpt
Uganda N'eddagala Lyayo the National Traditional Healers & Herbalists Association Limited & Another v Saazi & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 2376 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 165 (30 May 2024)
The High Court refused to award costs after abatement of the main suit, holding that the application could not reopen a final order because the court was functus officio.
Muse AF Enterprises Company Limited v Lingi Huatai Battery Manufacturing Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 376 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 54 (30 June 2023)
The High Court’s Commercial Division granted leave to appeal, stayed HCCS No. 0376 of 2020, and kept Anton Piller orders in force pending appeal.
Uganda Batteries Limited v Nile Batteries Limited (Civil Suit 917 of 2018) [2023] UGCommC 224 (13 March 2023)
The High Court held that Uganda Batteries proved copyright in its warranty card wording but failed to prove infringement or trademark-based claims against Nile Batteries.
United Breweries Limited v Rest Club One Limited (Civil Suit 477 of 2020) [2023] UGCommC 98 (24 February 2023)
The High Court dismissed a trademark infringement and passing off suit over CLUB 5 and CLUB One Premium Gin, finding no likelihood of confusion and no proven damage.
Intel Corporation v Intel Computers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 821 of 2019) [2022] UGCommC 90 (9 August 2022)
The High Court dismissed Intel Corporation’s trademark infringement suit against Intel Computers Limited, finding no proven likelihood of confusion or infringement under the Trademarks Act.
Linyi Huatai Battery Manufacturing Company Limited v Musa AF Enterprises Company Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 573 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 35 (12 August 2021)
The High Court extended an Anton Piller order in a trademark dispute, holding that the applicant’s registered rights justified interlocutory protection pending the main suit.
Comfoam (U) Ltd v Royikems Industries Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 100 (3 March 2021)
The High Court dismissed an oral application to cross-examine an affidavit deponent, holding the respondent had not shown sufficient cause and the issues could wait for trial.
