Uganda Case Law

Benson & Hedges (Overseas) Limited v B & Foto Electronics Corp (Trademark Application 39465 of 2004)

Benson & Hedges (Overseas) Limited v B & Foto Electronics Corp (Trademark Application 39465 of 2004) [2024] UGRSB 12 (21 June 2024)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 39465 of 2004

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

The Registrar dismissed an opposition to “B & H” in class 9, holding that the applicant’s electronics goods were unlike the opponent’s tobacco products.

• Trademark Registration
• Well Known Marks
• Likelihood Of Confusion
• Defensive Registration
• Trademark-opposition
• Well-known-marks

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

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)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 67455 of 2020

Judge

Rukundo Sarah - Senior Registration Officer

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…

Source excerpt

• Trademark Registration
• Territoriality Of Rights
• Well Known Marks
• Country Of Origin Protection
• Distinctiveness
• Continuous Use Exception

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)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Registration 56916 of 2016

Judge

Nyangoma Maria - Manager Trademarks and Geographical Indications

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

Liberty Group Limited v Liberty ICD Limited (Trademark Application 47160 of 2013)

Liberty Group Limited v Liberty ICD Limited (Trademark Application 47160 of 2013) [2023] UGRSB 5 (14 July 2023)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 47160 of 2013

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

The Registrar declined cancellation of the LIBERTY mark and ordered concurrent use, finding both parties had bona fide claims but the applicant had delayed unreasonably.

• Trademark Registration
• Concurrent Use
• Priority Of Application
• Well Known Marks
• Rectification Of Register
• Trademark-registration

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

Rani Refreshments FZCO v Akaba Investments Limited (Trademark Application 29459 of 2020)

Rani Refreshments FZCO v Akaba Investments Limited (Trademark Application 29459 of 2020) [2023] UGRSB 6 (15 March 2023)

Court

Uganda Registration Services Bureau

Case number

Trademark Application 29459 of 2020

Judge

Birungi Denis - Senior Registration Officer

The applicant established, through unrebutted documentary and investigative evidence, that the respondent has not made bona fide use of the 'RANI JUICE' trademark in Uganda since its registration in 2007. The respondent failed to participate or provide any evidence of use, despite being served and having knowledge of the proceedings. The company registry search corroborated the lack of trading activity, indicating dormancy. Under section 46(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, 2010, a trademark may be cancelled if there is no bona fide use for a continuous period of three years prior to the applicati…

Source excerpt

• Trademark Cancellation
• Non Use
• Well Known Marks
• Paris Convention Protection