Wakilii

Haco Industries (K) Ltd v Ddungu FW (HCT-00-CC-MA 253 of 2005)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 21 · 2005 Injunction Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for temporary injunction arising from pending civil suit concerning alleged importation of counterfeit goods
Decision
Temporary injunction granted for 4 months; preservation order 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

Court granted temporary injunction restraining respondent from taking possession or dealing with 72 cartons of allegedly counterfeit Bic pens held by Special Revenue Protection Services, finding applicant established arguable case, likelihood of irreparable harm to market for genuine goods, and balance of convenience. Preservation order against Special Revenue Protection Services denied as it was not party to proceedings and its legal status uncertain.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted for 4 months; preservation order refused

Facts

Applicant is licensed manufacturer of Bic pens in Kenya, selling through distributors in Uganda. Applicant alleged 72 cartons of counterfeit Bic pens were impounded by Special Revenue Protection Services and were being imported by respondent. Applicant filed civil suit seeking injunction and delivery up for destruction. Respondent in written statement of defence denied importing or dealing in the counterfeit Bic pens, stating he imports other pen brands (PIANO, BEIFA, CRYSTAL) but not Bic pens. Applicant then sought temporary injunction to preserve the goods and restrain respondent from dealing with them pending trial. Hearing proceeded ex parte as respondent did not appear despite service.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from dealing with allegedly counterfeit Bic pens.
  2. Whether the court should make a preservation order against the Special Revenue Protection Services.

Orders

  • Temporary injunction granted against the respondent restraining him, his agents and servants, from taking possession and dealing in any way whatsoever with the 72 cartons of allegedly counterfeit Bic pens currently in possession of the Special Revenue Protection Services.
  • Temporary injunction to subsist for a period of 4 months from 11 May 2005.
  • Application for preservation order against Special Revenue Protection Services denied.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the head suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Three-Part Test for Grant
Before a temporary injunction may be granted, the applicant must establish: (i) an arguable case, (ii) likelihood of suffering irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and (iii) in case of doubt, that the balance of convenience lies with granting rather than denying the application.
Intellectual Property — Counterfeit Goods — Irreparable Harm to Market
Sale of counterfeit goods bearing a manufacturer's trademark will irreparably injure the manufacturer's market as damages would hardly atone for such damage, particularly where the counterfeit goods are alleged to be of poor quality.
Civil Procedure — Preservation Orders — Requirements Where Non-Party Affected
A court will not make a preservation order purporting to bind a non-party to the proceedings where the applicant has not shown the particulars, legal status, or functions of that entity and whether it has statutory authority relevant to the subject matter.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Haco Industries (K) Ltd v Ddungu FW (HCT-00-CC-MA 253 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 21 (11 May 2005)
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.