Wakilii

Credscan (Proprietary) Limited v Aquelle Beverages SMC Limited (Trademark Registration 80314 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2026] UGRSB 1 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for cancellation of registered trademark under section 88(1) of the Trademarks Act
Decision
Application dismissed; Respondent's trademark registration upheld

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application for cancellation of the Respondent's trademark AQUELLE registered in Uganda. Held that the registration was not made in error because under Uganda's first-to-file system, the Respondent filed first and no conflicting mark was on the register at examination. Trademark rights are territorial and foreign registrations do not confer enforceable rights in Uganda absent domestic registration. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention protection for well-known marks is domesticated only through defensive registration under section 47 of the Trademarks Act. The Applicant failed to prove bad faith, having adduced no evidence of dishonest intention at the time of filing or prior commercial relationship between the parties.

Outcome

Application dismissed; Respondent's trademark registration upheld

Facts

The Applicant, a South African company, applied to cancel the Respondent's Ugandan trademark registration for AQUELLE in Class 32 (mineral water products), registered on 15 August 2023. The Applicant claimed it had used the mark AQUELLÉ internationally since 1998 and held registrations in multiple jurisdictions including South Africa since 2016. The Respondent, a Ugandan company incorporated in December 2020, had expanded from Kenya where its affiliate Komax Investments Limited used the mark since 2005 and secured Kenyan registration in 2019. The Respondent's mark was advertised in the Uganda Gazette and the Applicant failed to file opposition within the granted 90-day extension. The Respondent demonstrated substantial local sales to Ugandan hotels, banks and government entities. The Applicant filed its own Ugandan trademark application in November 2023, after the Respondent's registration.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's trademark was registered in error?
  2. Whether the Respondent's trademark was registered in bad faith?
  3. What remedies are available for the parties?

Orders

  • Application for cancellation of the Respondent's trademark UG/T/2023/080314 AQUELLE in Class 32 dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.
  • Respondent's trademark registration UG/T/2023/080314 AQUELLE in Class 32 upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Cancellation — Registration in Error — First-to-File System
Under Uganda's first-to-file trademark system, a registration cannot be said to have been made in error where at the time of examination no conflicting mark was on the register, even if a foreign party claims prior use or registration in other jurisdictions.
Trademarks — Territoriality Principle — Foreign Registrations
Trademark rights are territorial and a mark registered in one country is independent of marks registered in other countries. Foreign registrations or international reputation do not confer enforceable rights in Uganda absent domestic registration or compliance with statutory protection mechanisms.
Trademarks — Well-Known Marks — Article 6bis Paris Convention — Defensive Registration
Protection of well-known marks under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention is domesticated in Uganda only through defensive registration under section 47 of the Trademarks Act. Article 6bis cannot be invoked to invalidate, block or cancel a trademark duly registered in Uganda in the absence of defensive registration or compliance with statutory procedures.
Trademarks — Bad Faith — Burden of Proof — Dishonest Intention
Bad faith in trademark registration requires proof of dishonest intention at the time of filing, assessed objectively through relevant and consistent indicia showing either intention to undermine third party interests inconsistently with honest practices or intention to obtain exclusive rights for purposes other than trademark functions. The burden of proving bad faith rests with the party alleging it.
Trademarks — Goodwill — Territorial Requirement — Actual Customers
To establish protectable goodwill in a jurisdiction, a claimant must prove the presence of actual customers in that jurisdiction who are engaged in a commercial relationship with the claimant, not merely reputation or awareness. Mere online accessibility without evidence of actual commercial transactions or market penetration is insufficient to establish local goodwill.
Trademarks — Bad Faith — Circumstantial Evidence — Prior Commercial Relationship
A claim of bad faith based on circumstantial inference that a respondent must have known of an applicant's international reputation, without evidence of prior commercial relationship between the parties or actual market presence by the applicant in the jurisdiction, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proving dishonest intention.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Credscan (Proprietary) Limited v Aquelle Beverages SMC Limited (Trademark Registration 80314 of 2023) [2026] UGRSB 1 (6 January 2026)
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.