Wakilii

Elite Gold Limited v IndoBali Distributors Limited [2025] UGRSB 6

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for cancellation of three registered trademarks on grounds of bad faith and fraud
Decision
Applications for cancellation dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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 Registrar dismissed the applications for cancellation of three trademarks registered by the Respondent. The Registrar held that claims based on section 45 of the Trademarks Act (protection for marks registered in country of origin) fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Registrar. On bad faith, the Registrar held that while the Registrar has jurisdiction to determine bad faith claims under section 88, the Applicant failed to prove bad faith or fraud to the required standard. The principle of territoriality meant the Respondent was entitled to register the marks in Uganda absent prior registration by the Applicant.

Outcome

Applications for cancellation dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent is the registered proprietor of three trademarks in Uganda: 'ROMA' (No. 043533, registered 2011), 'TORA BIKA' (No. 045697, registered 2012), and 'DANISHA' (No. 032264, registered 2009), all in class 30 for coffee and related goods. The Applicant, registered proprietor of the same marks in Malaysia and other countries since 2009, licensed PT Mayora to manufacture products under these marks. The Respondent was a distributor of PT Mayora products in Uganda. The Applicant sought cancellation on grounds that the Respondent registered the marks fraudulently and in bad faith, without consent, to prevent the Applicant's licensees from exporting goods to Uganda. The Applicant discovered the Respondent's registrations when its own applications to register in Uganda were rejected. The Respondent denied fraud and bad faith, asserting it registered the marks to safeguard its territorial business interests as a distributor, and that it had no business relationship with the Applicant, only with PT Mayora.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's trademarks should be cancelled on grounds that they were registered in bad faith?
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to protection accorded to prior rights based on registration in the country of origin?
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Applications for cancellation of trademark numbers 043533 'ROMA' and the device, 045697 'TORA BIKA' and 032264 'DANISHA' all in class 30 dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Jurisdiction — Registrar's Powers — Cancellation Based on Prior Foreign Registration
Under section 45 of the Trademarks Act, applications for cancellation of trademarks on the basis of prior registration in the country of origin fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Registrar of Trademarks.
Jurisdiction — Subject Matter Jurisdiction — Statutory Limits on Quasi-Judicial Bodies
Jurisdiction is a creature of statute and cannot be conferred by consent, complacency of parties, or acquiescence of the hearing officer. A decision taken without jurisdiction is null and void. Quasi-judicial bodies such as the Registrar of Trademarks have strict limitations on subject matter jurisdiction as defined by statute.
Trademarks — Bad Faith — Registrar's Jurisdiction to Determine
The Registrar of Trademarks has jurisdiction to determine claims of bad faith in trademark registration under section 88 of the Trademarks Act, as bad faith may constitute the cause of 'error', 'defect', or 'wrongful entry' on the register, which are grounds for cancellation listed in that section.
Trademarks — Bad Faith — Definition and Assessment
Bad faith in trademark law involves registration not with the intention of engaging fairly in competition but either with the intention of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties, or with the intention of obtaining an exclusive right for purposes other than the essential function of a trademark (indicating origin and distinguishing goods). Bad faith is assessed subjectively by examining the intention of the proprietor at the time of filing, but must be established objectively by reference to the circumstances of the case.
Trademarks — Territoriality Principle — Protection Limited to Jurisdiction of Registration
The principle of territoriality, enshrined in Article 6 of the Paris Convention and section 36(3) of the Trademarks Act, provides that trademark protection in one country does not extend to another country. A person who has not registered a trademark in Uganda does not have protection in Uganda and cannot claim infringement based solely on registration in another jurisdiction. A mark duly registered in one country is regarded as independent of marks registered in other countries.
Trademarks — Fraud — Standard of Proof and Particularity
Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities applicable in ordinary civil cases, though not beyond reasonable doubt. A cause of action based on bad faith or fraud must particularise the aspects that constitute those allegations to give the respondent opportunity to prepare a defence.
Trademarks — Function and Definition — Distinguishing Goods versus Badge of Origin
While a trademark may function as a badge of origin, the Trademarks Act defines a trademark primarily as a sign capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of another. This definition recognises that the owner of a trademark may not be the manufacturer of goods, and that licensees may produce goods under a licensed trademark without the goods necessarily originating from the trademark owner.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (18)

  • Nyati Security Guards & Services Ltd v Municipal Council of Mombasa [2000] eKLR
  • Fredrick J K Zaabwe v Orient Bank Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Olivia Sanyu & Another v Commissioner Land Registration (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • Shri Chander Mohan Kapoor t/a British Herbal Cosmetics v Amin Chavania t/a Jasker Enterprises (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2005)
  • Dr Joseph Kabuubi & Another v Wilson Kashaya & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 0385 of 2020)
  • Sky Kick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd [2024] UKSC 36
  • Blue Bell Inc v Farah Mfg Co 508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir 1975)
  • Techno Telecom Ltd v Kigalo Investments Ltd (Misc Application No. 0017 of 2011)
  • Vision Impex Limited v Sansa Ambrose & Another (Civil Suit No. 303 of 2013) [2017] UGCOMMC 159
  • Arsenal Football Club v Matthew Reed (Case C-206/01)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian S v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1
  • Ozuu Brothers Enterprises v Ayikoru (Civil Revision No. 2 of 2016)
  • Nsubuga v Badru Kigundu & Others (Misc Cause No. 148 of 2015)
  • Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (Case C-529/07)
  • Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiling BV (Case C-40/01) [2003] ECR I-2439
  • La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratories Goemar SA (Case C-259/02) [2004] ECR I-1159
  • Sebuliba v Cooperative Bank Limited [1987] HCB 130
  • M Kibalya v Kibalya [1994-95] HCB 80

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.

Elite Gold Limited v IndoBali Distributors Limited 2025 UGRSB 6 (1 April 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.