Previous 17 / 17 Next

JUDGE Ruling delivered in chambers in the presence of Mr. Richard Nsubuga for the applicant and Mr. Richard Adubango for the respondent. Officials of both parties were absent. JUDGE 29/11/11

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tecno Telecom Limited v Kigalo Investments Ltd 2011.

Case Law

Country

Uganda

Country Location

Latitude: 1.5257584863641895

Longitude: 32.381670917978084

Country Location (linked Case Law): Uganda

Decision Date: Nov 11, 2011

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Granted

Keywords

Intellectual Property
Trademark

Judicial Body: Administrative Court

Court Name: High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Commercial Court Division)

Case Number: 0017 of 2011

Case Summary: The Applicant applied to have the Respondent's registered trademark "TECNO" removed for non-use and on grounds of proof of prior registration in a country of origin. The court found that the mark registered in Hong Kong and the one in Uganda were identical and were in respect of the same goods. Consequently, it ruled that the Applicant had met all the conditions for removal of a trademark from the register and that the Respondent's act be investigated further as it contravened the Trademarks Act.

Case Significance: An applicant for the removal of a trademark in Uganda must, according to section 45 of the Act, demonstrate that the mark is identical or closely resembled a trademark which was registered in a country of origin in respect to the same goods, description of goods, or services prior to its registration in Uganda.

Related Caselaw (self)

Tecno Telecom Limited v Kigalo Investments Ltd 2011.

Related Law

THE TRADEMARKS ACT, 2010. Uganda

Notes: The Applicant had first registered the "TECNO" trademark in Hong Kong for goods in class 9; electronic goods including phones and their products had been in Uganda prior to the mark registration. The court thus concluded that on section 45 grounds the trademark ought to be removed from the register but that notwithstanding that ground, the trademark could still be removed due to lack of bona fide use of the mark up to a date before the application to the court.

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Dec 6, 2019

Primary Documents

Tecno Telecom Limited v Kigalo Investments Ltd.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Tecno Telecom Limited v Kigalo Investments Ltd 2011.

Primary Documents

Notifications