Wakilii

Crocs Inc v Landy Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2072 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 488 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for temporary injunction and seizure orders in trademark infringement proceedings
Decision
Temporary injunction granted; seizure of infringing footwear and molds ordered; seizure of manufacturing machinery and disclosure of sales records refused

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 court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing, selling, or distributing CROCS branded footwear pending the main suit. The applicant established a prima facie case of trademark infringement through evidence from an Anton Piller order execution. While the court found the applicant failed to prove irreparable harm due to lack of evidence of market presence in Uganda, the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court ordered seizure of infringing footwear and molds but declined to order seizure of manufacturing machinery or premature disclosure of sales records.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted; seizure of infringing footwear and molds ordered; seizure of manufacturing machinery and disclosure of sales records refused

Facts

The applicant, proprietor of the CROCS trademark renewed in 2018 until 2028, filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement. The applicant had previously obtained an Anton Piller order which was executed on 29 August 2025, resulting in the recovery of 10 pairs of infringing CROCS footwear from the respondent's factory at Mbalala Industrial Zone. Photographs taken during execution showed large quantities of infringing footwear at the factory. The respondent admitted manufacturing footwear branded with CROCS but claimed production had ceased after service of the Anton Piller order and that the huge consignment found had been ordered for and sold. The respondent offered to surrender molds bearing the CROCS mark but resisted seizure of manufacturing machinery, stating it was used to produce other products and its seizure would collapse the entire factory operation.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised grounds sufficient for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  2. Whether the delivery of documentary evidence and manufacturing machinery is appropriate in the circumstances?

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the Respondent from continuing to infringe the Applicant's CROCS trade marks by manufacturing, importing, exporting, selling and or offering or advertising for sale or distributing CROCS branded footwear in or from the territory of Uganda, pending the outcome of the main suit.
  • A Bailiff appointed by the applicant, at the Respondent's cost, to immediately seize and remove all CROCS branded footwear from the Respondent's factory situated at Mbalala Industrial Zone and from its sales outlets situated at God's Grace Building William Street, Kampala within 48 hours of this ruling.
  • The Bailiff is directed to file a return in this court within 3 days after completing the retrieval of all CROCS branded footwear from the Respondent's factory and sales outlets.
  • The Respondent and/or its representatives or agents to deliver to the Custody of the Honourable Court all the CROCS branded footwear in its possession and/or under its control anywhere in Uganda.
  • The costs are in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademark Infringement — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case
In an application for a temporary injunction to restrain trademark infringement, a prima facie case is established where the applicant demonstrates ownership of a valid registered trademark and evidence shows the respondent manufactured goods bearing that trademark without authorization, even where the respondent admits to such manufacture.
Trademark Infringement — Irreparable Harm — Market Presence
An applicant seeking a temporary injunction for trademark infringement fails to establish irreparable harm where there is no evidence of the applicant's market presence or commercial footprint in the jurisdiction, and uncontroverted evidence shows the applicant has no known market in Uganda.
Interlocutory Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Unsubstantiated Claims
Where a respondent claims to have ceased infringing activities but provides no evidence to substantiate this claim, the court will not rely on such unsubstantiated statements, and the balance of convenience favours granting an injunction to protect the trademark owner's interests, as restraining continued production will not prejudice the respondent.
Trademark Infringement — Seizure of Manufacturing Equipment — Premature Relief
An order for delivery up and seizure of manufacturing machinery used to produce infringing products is premature at the interlocutory stage and should only arise from a final finding of infringement, particularly where the machinery is also used to manufacture legitimate non-infringing products and its seizure would cripple the respondent's entire business operations.
Discovery — Interlocutory Applications — Premature Disclosure
An application for disclosure of sales records and documentary evidence relating to alleged infringement is premature at the interlocutory stage and should be dealt with in the main suit where specific details of documents to be produced can be properly set out.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (11)

  • John Mubiru & Ors v Christina Kayaga & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 244 of 2018)
  • Fellowes and Son v Fisher [1976] 1 QB 122
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • Geilla v Cassman Brown Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko and 4 others v Seezi Peter Mutabazi and 2 others [2001-2005] HCB 80
  • Nsubuga and another v Mutawe [1974] EA 487
  • City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application No. 3 of 2000)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji N Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa Badru (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Nice House of Plastics Ltd v Hamidu Lubega (Civil Suit No. 695 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Crocs Inc v Landy Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2072 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 488 (27 October 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.