Hewelett-Packard Development Company, L.P v China New Company Ltd &Anor (Civil Suit No. 097 of 2013)
Observed later treatment
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 High Court held that toner cartridges imported by the 1st Defendant bearing labels closely resembling the Plaintiff's registered HP trademarks constituted trademark infringement and were counterfeit goods. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the 1st Defendant from using the HP mark and ordered seizure and destruction of the counterfeit cartridges, but awarded reduced general damages of UGX 20 million due to lack of quantifiable evidence of loss.
Outcome
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff with permanent injunctions granted, counterfeit goods ordered destroyed under supervision of URA and UNBS, and damages awarded
Facts
The Plaintiff, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., is the registered proprietor in Uganda of two trademarks (numbers 40468 and 40471) for the HP Logo covering printers and cartridges. The 1st Defendant imported into Uganda cartons of toner cartridges bearing marks closely resembling the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The goods were declared to customs as chemical preparations for photographic use but were discovered to be HP toners. Uganda Revenue Authority customs officials contacted the Plaintiff's contracted investigator who examined samples and found the labels and packaging differed from authentic HP products but would appear genuine to unsuspecting consumers, with spelling errors and different security features. A full verification of the entire consignment confirmed the goods were counterfeit. The 1st Defendant claimed this was their first time importing toner, that they obtained the goods from a supplier who assured them the goods were authentic, and that their container was opened in their absence raising the possibility of tampering. The 1st Defendant held no registered license or trademark for HP products.
Issues
- Whether the toner cartridges imported by the 1st Defendant are counterfeit.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from using the words/mark HP or HEWLETT PACKARD on any cartridges or other products.
- Permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff's trademark.
- Permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from use of packaging and product set up similar to that used by the Plaintiff.
- Order for seizure and delivery up by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff for destruction of the counterfeit HP Toner Cartridges and other material in their possession relating to the Plaintiff's trademarks and get up, to be supervised by URA and UNBS.
- General damages of UGX 20 million awarded to the Plaintiff.
- Interest at court rate on the damages from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (1)
- Nice House of Plastics Ltd v Hamidu Lubega (Civil Suit No. 695 of 2006)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.