Wakilii

Colgate-Palmolive Company v Bi Wang (Trademark Application No. UG T 2024 83781)

Tribunal · [2025] UGRSB 38 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Opposition to trademark registration proceeding ex parte after applicant declined to participate
Decision
Trademark registration cancelled and matter remitted to opposition proceedings stage

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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

Held that registration of a trademark while opposition proceedings are pending and before resolution of the opposition violates section 16(1) of the Trademarks Act and is null and void ab initio. The Registrar has power under section 2(7) to cancel such illegal registration and reverse the process to pre-registration stage to enable opposition proceedings to continue in accordance with the Act.

Outcome

Trademark registration cancelled and matter remitted to opposition proceedings stage

Facts

On 8 July 2024, Bi Wang, a Chinese national, applied to register the trademark "AFDBT GOOD DOCTOR" in class 21. On 19 December 2024, Colgate-Palmolive Company filed opposition on grounds of confusing similarity to its registered trademarks. Before the opposition could be heard, the Registrar registered the applicant's trademark on 23 January 2025 and issued a certificate on 6 February 2025. The applicant's agents declined to file a counterstatement, contending that registration terminated the opposition proceedings. The applicant's agents later withdrew representation and the applicant declined to participate in the hearing, stating by email that he would not attend or file a response. The matter proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the premature registration of trademark number UG/T/2024/83781 should be reversed to enable opposition proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • Registration of trademark UG/T/2024/83781 cancelled.
  • Trademark UG/T/2024/83781 expunged from the register.
  • Process reversed back to application stage to enable opposition proceedings to continue in accordance with the Trademarks Act and Trademark Regulations.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademark Registration — Statutory Prerequisites — Opposition Proceedings
Section 16(1) of the Trademarks Act sets two clear legal pathways to registration: either the application has not been objected to and the time for objection has expired, or the application has been objected to and the objection has been decided in favour of the applicant. Registration of a trademark before resolution of pending opposition proceedings violates section 16(1) and is illegal.
Procedural Illegality — Consequences — Void Ab Initio
Illegality in procedure has similar consequences to substantive illegality. An act or registration tainted with procedural illegality is void ab initio and cannot be left to stand.
Trademark Registration — Registrar's Powers — Control and Management of Register
The Registrar's power under section 2(7) of the Trademarks Act to control and manage the register includes the power to expunge and remove illegal registrations that have been determined to be illegal, in order to maintain an accurate register in the public interest.
Purposive Interpretation — Safeguarding Legislative Intent
Where the Trademarks Act does not provide clear guidance on remedying illegal registration, the purposive rule of statutory interpretation requires that the purpose or intention of the legislature in enacting section 16(1) be safeguarded.
Trademark Opposition — Public Policy — Quality Control Function
Opposition proceedings serve as quality control to ensure accuracy of the trademark register, provide a cost-effective preventive alternative to post-registration litigation, and act as an essential checkpoint between application and registration to ensure only marks deserving of legal protection enter the register.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sinba (K) Ltd and 4 Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company v Bi Wang (Trademark Application No. UG T 2024 83781) [2025] UGRSB 38 (19 December 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.