Wakilii

Hewlet Packard Development Company L.P v China Future Furniture Co. Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 97 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 1 · 2014 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trademark infringement and passing off
Decision
Judgment for the Plaintiff with permanent injunctions, seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods, and award of general damages.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

The High Court Commercial Division held that goods imported by the 1st Defendant bearing labels closely resembling the Plaintiff's registered HP trademarks were counterfeit and constituted trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining further infringement, ordered seizure and destruction of the counterfeit goods, and awarded general damages of UGX 20 million. The court declined to award exemplary or aggravated damages due to lack of evidence of circulation of counterfeit goods or established goodwill.

Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff with permanent injunctions, seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods, and award of general damages.

Facts

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P, the registered proprietor of two trademarks (numbers 40468 and 40471) for the HP Logo in Uganda for goods including printers and cartridges, discovered that China New Future Company Ltd had imported cartridges bearing marks closely resembling the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. A professional investigator contracted by HP examined samples from the imported consignment and found that while the packaging and labels appeared similar to genuine HP products to an untrained eye, they contained spelling errors and differed in security features from authentic products. Full verification of the entire consignment revealed all goods bore misleading labels. 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 suggested their container may have been tampered with in their absence. The 1st Defendant had no registered licence or trademark for HP products.

Issues

  1. Whether the toner cartridges imported by the 1st Defendant are counterfeit.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction granted restraining the 1st Defendant from using the words/mark HP or HEWLETT PACKARD on any cartridges or other products.
  • Permanent injunction granted restraining the 1st Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff's trademark.
  • Permanent injunction granted restraining the 1st Defendant from use of packaging and product set up similar to that used by the Plaintiff.
  • Order for seizure and delivery by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff for destruction of all counterfeit HP Toner Cartridges, to be supervised by URA and UNBS.
  • General damages of UGX 20 million awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Interest at court rate on general damages from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademark Infringement — Counterfeit Goods — Standard of Proof
Trademark infringement occurs when goods are manufactured or imported bearing a mark so resembling a registered trademark that the public would be deceived into believing these are goods manufactured by the trademark proprietor when they are not. Counterfeit goods include items altered to appear to be brand goods through unauthorized use of logos or trademarks on generic goods.
Trademark Infringement — Deceptive Similarity — Test for Infringement
Where imported goods bear labels that differ from genuine products to a trained expert eye but appear identical to an unsuspecting consumer, and the importer has no registered licence or trademark for the products, the goods constitute trademark infringement and are counterfeit.
Trademark Infringement — Remedies — Permanent Injunctions
Upon proof of trademark infringement through importation of counterfeit goods, the court will grant permanent injunctions restraining the infringer from using the registered mark, from further infringement, and from using similar packaging and product setup.
Trademark Infringement — Remedies — Seizure and Destruction of Counterfeit Goods
Where counterfeit goods bearing a registered trademark have been imported, the court will order seizure and delivery of all counterfeit goods to the trademark proprietor for destruction, with such destruction to be supervised by relevant regulatory authorities.
Damages — General Damages for Trademark Infringement — Assessment Principles
Damages for trademark infringement are intended as compensation for the plaintiff's loss and not punishment to the defendant. Where there is no evidence of established goodwill, reputation, or circulation of counterfeit goods before interception, exemplary and aggravated damages will not be awarded, and general damages must be assessed on available evidence rather than speculative value based on taxes paid.

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

↓ Download PDF

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

Hewlet Packard Development Company L.P v China Future Furniture Co. Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No. 97 of 2013) [2014] UGCommC 1 (10 January 2014)
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.