Wakilii

Afroludo Limited v Uganda Registration Services Bureau & Another (Civil Suit 262 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 18 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit challenging trademark rejection and business name registration
Decision
Plaintiff's suit substantially allowed; 2nd defendant's business name ordered deregistered; plaintiff's trademark to be registered; permanent injunction granted against 2nd defendant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court held that the Uganda Registration Services Bureau acted illegally and irrationally in rejecting the plaintiff's trademark application for 'Nyege Nyege' on grounds of immorality based on a Kiswahili slang meaning, while ignoring the Lusoga origin where the word means excitement or desire to dance. The court found the 2nd defendant fraudulently procured registration of a confusingly similar business name to mislead the public. The court ordered deregistration of the business name, directed registration of the trademark, and granted a permanent injunction restraining use of the name by the 2nd defendant.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit substantially allowed; 2nd defendant's business name ordered deregistered; plaintiff's trademark to be registered; permanent injunction granted against 2nd defendant

Facts

The plaintiff, Afroludo Limited, organizes the internationally recognized Nyege Nyege International Music Festival. On 11 July 2019, the plaintiff applied to register 'Nyege Nyege' as a trademark but was rejected by the 1st defendant on grounds that the word connoted sexual immorality in Kiswahili. One month later, the 1st defendant registered the business name 'Nyege Nyege Music Festival' in the name of the 2nd defendant, Eric Nyakueizabo, who had never organized any music event under that name. The 2nd defendant filed a counterclaim alleging fraudulent use of his business name, which the plaintiff denied, asserting the registration was made in bad faith to extort money. The plaintiff had been organizing the Nyege Nyege Festival in the Busoga region for four years before applying for trademark protection.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st defendant illegally and irrationally rejected the plaintiff's application for the trademark registration of the mark 'Nyege Nyege International Music Festival'
  2. Whether the 2nd defendant illegally and fraudulently procured registration of the business name 'Nyege Nyege Music Festival'
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought

Orders

  • Declaration that the refusal by the 1st defendant to register the plaintiff's trademark 'Nyege Nyege' and subsequent registration of the 2nd defendant's business name 'Nyege Nyege Music Festival' was irrational and illegal.
  • The 1st defendant is ordered to deregister the 2nd defendant's business name.
  • The plaintiff's trademark should be registered.
  • A permanent injunction is issued against the 2nd defendant and/or any of his agents from any claim or right to use the name 'Nyege Nyege Music Festival'.
  • Each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademark Registration — Scandalous or Immoral Marks — Assessment Based on Relevant Linguistic Context
When determining whether a mark is contrary to morality under section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act 2010, the registrar must assess the meaning of the word from the perspective of the relevant language-speaking public where the mark is used, not based on imported meanings from other languages or online search results without proper lexicographic authority.
Judicial Review — Illegality and Irrationality — Exercise of Discretionary Powers
A decision by a public authority is illegal when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process, acts without jurisdiction, ultra vires, or contrary to law. A decision is irrational when there is such gross unreasonableness that no reasonable authority, addressing itself to the facts and law, would have made such a decision. Discretionary powers to register trademarks must be exercised fairly and not at the whims of the decision-maker.
Business Names Registration — Duty to Prevent Misleading Names
Under sections 15 and 16 of the Business Names Registration Act Cap 109, the Registrar has a duty to ensure that a business name sought to be registered is not misleading. Registration of a business name that is identical or confusingly similar to an established trader's well-known mark, where the applicant has never operated under that name, misleads the public and is illegal.
Trademark and Business Name Registers — Different Tests for Registration
The test for morality expressly stated in section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act 2010 does not automatically apply to business name registration under the Business Names Registration Act Cap 109, which focuses on whether a name is misleading. However, registering a business name that incorporates the same allegedly immoral words recently rejected as a trademark, while the applicant has never used that name in trade, demonstrates inconsistency and unfairness in the exercise of statutory discretion.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2
  • Vantage Mezzanine Fund Partnership v Uganda Registration Services Bureau & 4 Others (HCMC No. 205 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Afroludo Limited v Uganda Registration Services Bureau & Another (Civil Suit 262 of 2022) [2025] UGHCCD 18 (14 February 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.