Wakilii

Intel Corporation v Intel Computers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 821 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 90 · 2022 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trademark infringement
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

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

Held that the defendant's use of the company name 'INTEL COMPUTERS LIMITED' and its logo did not constitute trademark infringement under sections 36 and 37 of the Trademarks Act 2010. The defendant's business of repairing and installing software in computers was not in respect of goods or services identical or similar to those covered by the plaintiff's registered INTEL trademark in class 9 (computer hardware and related goods) or class 42 (computer-related services). The defendant registered its company name in 2002, before the plaintiff registered its trademark in class 42 in 2011. No likelihood of confusion was established. Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff, Intel Corporation, founded in 1968, registered its INTEL trademark in Uganda in class 9 on 17 February 1999 and in class 42 on 9 February 2011. The plaintiff manufactures computer hardware, semiconductors, and provides computer-related services. The defendant, Intel Computers Limited, was incorporated in Uganda on 13 May 2002 under company number 53373. The defendant operates a business repairing, refurbishing, and installing software in computers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of the name 'INTEL COMPUTERS LIMITED' and a logo resembling the plaintiff's 'dropped e' logo infringed its registered INTEL trademark. The defendant contended that it conducted necessary verifications before incorporation, that the name was available, and that its business activities did not infringe the plaintiff's trademark rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant's use of the name 'INTEL' constitutes infringement of the Plaintiff's 'INTEL' trademark.
  2. Whether the Defendant's use of the name 'INTEL COMPUTERS LIMITED' and the Defendant's logo constitutes infringement of the Plaintiff's 'INTEL' trademark in terms of sections 36 and 37 of the Trademarks Act 2010.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed against the Plaintiff.
  • Costs awarded to the Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademark Infringement — Test for Infringement — Likelihood of Confusion
Infringement of a trademark occurs when a person, not being the owner or authorised by the owner, uses in the course of trade a mark identical to or resembling the registered mark in relation to goods or services identical or similar to those for which the trademark was registered, and where the use would result in a likelihood of confusion.
Trademark Infringement — Goods of the Same Description — Romer Test
In determining whether goods are of the same description for purposes of trademark infringement, regard should be had to the nature and composition of the goods, the respective uses of the articles, and the trade channels through which the commodities are respectively bought and sold.
Trademark Infringement — Burden of Proof — Plaintiff's Duty
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove the fact of infringement, including that the defendant used the mark in the course of trade in respect of goods or services identical or similar to those for which the plaintiff's trademark was registered.
Trademark Infringement — Bona Fide Use — Section 24 Defence
The registration of a trademark does not affect the bona fide use by a person of any description of the character or quality of their goods or services, not being a description that is likely to be taken as importing a reference to the trademark owner under sections 36(2)(b) or 37(2)(b) of the Trademarks Act 2010.
Trademark Registration — Prior Use — Company Name Registered Before Trademark
Where a defendant registered a company name before the plaintiff registered a trademark in a particular class, the defendant cannot be said to have infringed the plaintiff's trademark in respect of goods or services in that class which the defendant was using prior to the plaintiff's registration.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (5)

  • British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281
  • Re Jellinek's Application (1946) 63 RPC 59
  • Vision Impex Limited v Sanso Ambrose & Goldman Logistics Import and Export (HCCS No. 303 of 2013)
  • Angelo Fabrics (Bolton) Ltd and Anor v Africa Queen Ltd and Anor (HCCS No. 632 of 2006)
  • Standards Signs (U) Ltd v Standard Signs Ltd and Anor (HCCS No. 540 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Intel Corporation v Intel Computers Ltd (Civil Suit No. 821 of 2019) [2022] UGCommC 90 (9 August 2022)
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.