Wakilii

Crocs, Inc. v Landy Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1653 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 312 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for interim relief arising from civil suit for trademark infringement
Decision
Anton Piller Order granted permitting inspection and seizure of allegedly infringing products; injunction prayer dismissed as incompetent for ex parte determination

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

Held that an injunction under Section 79(1) of the Trademarks Act cannot be granted ex parte and must be determined inter-parties. However, an Anton Piller Order under Section 79(2) may be granted ex parte where there is an extremely strong prima facie case, very serious actual or potential damage, and clear evidence that the defendant possesses incriminating materials which may be destroyed. The court granted the Anton Piller Order permitting inspection and seizure of allegedly infringing footwear bearing the CROCS trademark.

Outcome

Anton Piller Order granted permitting inspection and seizure of allegedly infringing products; injunction prayer dismissed as incompetent for ex parte determination

Facts

Crocs, Inc. is the registered owner of Trademark No. 43489 consisting of the word CROCS in Class 25 for footwear, registered on 8 July 2011 and renewed in 2018. In May 2025, the Applicant learned that Landy Industries Limited was manufacturing counterfeit Crocs footwear at its factory in Mbalala Industrial Zone, Mukono. The Applicant's private investigator, Mr. Henry Sebunya, visited the factory on 28 May 2025 and confirmed the manufacture of counterfeit Crocs footwear. He was directed to the Respondent's sales outlet at God's Grace Building, William Street, Kampala, where he purchased a carton of the branded footwear. Evidence indicated the Respondent distributes large quantities of the counterfeit footwear throughout Uganda and to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Applicant expressed concern that the Respondent would destroy or conceal infringing products if alerted to legal proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte application for an injunction and Anton Piller Order should be allowed.
  2. Whether Section 79(1) of the Trademarks Act permits the grant of an injunction on an ex parte basis.
  3. Whether the conditions for granting an Anton Piller Order under Section 79(2) of the Trademarks Act have been satisfied.

Orders

  • An Anton Piller Order is issued directing the Respondent to permit the Applicant, accompanied by no more than 2 advocates, 2 court bailiffs and 2 police officers, to enter the Respondent's factory at Seeta Ward, Mbalala Industrial Zone, Mukono District and sales outlet at God's Grace Building, Room K13, William Street, Kampala.
  • The Applicant is permitted to inspect the said factory and sales outlet.
  • The Applicant is permitted to seize and take away no more than 10 pairs of footwear bearing the CROCS mark from the factory and no more than 10 pairs from the sales outlet for purposes of trial in Civil Suit No. 0909 of 2025.
  • The Applicant shall transmit all seized footwear plus an account of execution to the Registrar within 5 days from the date of execution.
  • The prayer for an injunction prohibiting continuation of infringement is dismissed as incompetent.
  • Costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of Civil Suit No. 0909 of 2025.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Anton Piller Orders — Distinction Between Sections 79(1) and 79(2) of the Trademarks Act
Section 79(1) of the Trademarks Act does not permit the court to grant an injunction prohibiting trademark infringement on an ex parte basis; such proceedings must be conducted inter-parties save for circumstances in which the Civil Procedure Rules allow a suit to be heard ex parte.
Trademarks — Anton Piller Orders — Conditions for Grant
For the court to issue an Anton Piller Order under Section 79(2) of the Trademarks Act, three conditions must be satisfied: (1) there must be an extremely strong prima facie case; (2) the damage, potential or actual, must be very serious to the plaintiff; and (3) there must be clear evidence that the defendant has in its possession incriminating documents or things and that there is a real possibility that it may destroy such material before any application inter-parties can be made.
Trademarks — Prima Facie Case — Registered Trademark and Evidence of Use
A very strong prima facie case for trademark infringement is established where the applicant is the registered owner of a trademark, the trademark was registered in respect of specific goods, and there is evidence that the respondent is manufacturing, marketing and retailing goods bearing a mark identical to the registered trademark.
Trademarks — Serious Damage — Use of Identical Mark for Same Products in Same Territory
Very serious damage is likely to occur where a respondent uses a mark that is visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to the plaintiff's registered mark to market the same type of products in respect of which the plaintiff's mark was registered and in the same geographical territory, as such conduct is likely to undercut the market for the plaintiff's products and negatively affect sales.
Trademarks — Anton Piller Orders — Risk of Destruction of Evidence
There is a real possibility that a respondent may destroy or hide allegedly infringing products before an inter-parties application can be heard where the respondent markets products under a trademark owned by another party and where the respondent's supply chain extends beyond Uganda, making it possible to transfer products or the business to markets outside the jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Nile Breweries Ltd v Johnson Sebuggwawo (Miscellaneous Application No. 0252 of 2024)
  • Anton Piller K.G. v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch. 55
  • Uganda Performing Rights Society v Mega Standard Supermarket (Miscellaneous Application No. 1042 of 2015)
  • Jubilee Industries Ltd v Balle (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 855 of 2020)

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.

Crocs, Inc. v Landy Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1653 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 312 (29 August 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.