Wakilii

Crane Paper Ltd v V.G. Keshwala & Sons Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 447 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks ordering variation of the Appellant's trademark registration
Decision
Appeal dismissed; variation order upheld requiring Appellant to remove 'Diamond' word and device from its trademark

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Assistant Registrar's order requiring Crane Paper Ltd to vary its trademark by removing the word 'Diamond' and the diamond device. The court held that the Appellant's trademark, registered in 2024, was erroneously registered as it nearly resembled the Respondent's earlier trademark registered in 2016 in the same class, creating a likelihood of confusion. The court found no basis for concurrent use and upheld the costs order against the Appellant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; variation order upheld requiring Appellant to remove 'Diamond' word and device from its trademark

Facts

The Respondent registered trademark No. 63535 'Diamond' and a diamond device on 29 November 2016 in class 16 for paper, stationery and related goods. The Appellant registered trademark No. UG/T/2024/83036 'Crane Paper Diamond' with a diamond device on 14 August 2024, also in class 16 for reams of paper, exercise books and stationery. The Appellant issued a public warning notice on 31 December 2024 and a cease and desist letter on 9 January 2025 to the Respondent alleging trademark infringement. The Respondent applied to the Registrar of Trademarks for cancellation of the Appellant's mark on grounds of erroneous registration and bad faith. On 14 October 2025, the Assistant Registrar found no bad faith but held the registration was in error and ordered variation to remove 'Diamond' and the diamond device from the Appellant's mark. The Appellant appealed seeking reinstatement or concurrent use.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks erred in law and fact when he ordered the Appellant to vary its trademark?
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks erred in law and fact when he denied the Appellant concurrent usage of their trademark?
  3. Whether the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks erred in law and fact when he condemned the Appellant to the costs of the application?

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Ruling of the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks dated 14th October 2025 upheld.
  • Appellant's trademark No. UG/T/2024/83036 to be varied to remove the word 'Diamond' and the diamond device.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Registration — Erroneous Registration — Likelihood of Confusion
A trademark shall not be registered in respect of goods that are identical with or nearly resemble a trademark belonging to a different owner already on the register in respect of the same goods, and where such registration occurs it constitutes an error justifying variation or removal under Section 88 of the Trademarks Act.
Trademarks — Disclaimers — Burden of Proof — Descriptive Character
A party seeking to rely on a disclaimer under Section 19 of the Trademarks Act must adduce evidence that the disclaimed matter is descriptive of the goods or services in issue or is common or generic to the trade; failure to prove descriptive character rules out the applicability of Section 19.
Trademarks — Disclaimers — Effect on Prior Rights
A disclaimer on the register does not affect the rights of the owner of a prior registered trademark; a subsequent registration with a disclaimer cannot override or diminish the exclusive rights conferred by an earlier registration.
Trademarks — Honest Concurrent Use — Requirements
The doctrine of honest concurrent use under Section 27(d) of the Trademarks Act requires that the concurrent use be honest, meaning the mark must have been independently adopted and used without knowledge of prior-existing identical or similar marks in the market; concurrent use will not be permitted where there is a likelihood of confusion and the marks are used within the same geographical area.
Trademarks — Appeals — Standard of Review — Registrar's Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Registrar of Trademarks unless satisfied that the Registrar misdirected himself in some matter and as a result came to a wrong decision, or unless manifestly from the case as a whole the Registrar was clearly wrong in the exercise of discretion and an injustice resulted.
Costs — Discretion — Costs Follow the Event
Costs of any cause shall follow the event unless otherwise ordered by the court; the Registrar of Trademarks has discretion under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act to award costs as he considers reasonable, and an appellate court will not interfere with a proper exercise of that discretion.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nairobi Java House Ltd v Mandela Auto Spares Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2015)
  • Liberty Group Limited v Loreal Logistics Limited (High Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2023)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd Vs AS Transporters Ltd [2009] 1 EA 145
  • Fr. Narsensio Begumisa & 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Pandya Vs R (1957) EA 336
  • Registered Trustees of Fort Portal Catholic Diocese v Wakesa David (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Crane Paper Ltd v V.G. Keshwala & Sons Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 447 (12 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.