Wakilii

International Distillers Uganda Limited v Toto Limited (Trademark Application 51324 of 2014)

Tribunal · [2026] UGRSB 25 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Opposition to trademark registration application
Decision
Applicant permitted to proceed to registration of trademark VOLT in class 33

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

The Registrar of Trademarks dismissed the opposition to registration of the mark VOLT by International Distillers Uganda Limited in class 33. Held that although both marks contained the dominant word VOLT, the Applicant's mark included the distinctive element Uganda Waragi which maintained an independent distinctive role and eliminated likelihood of confusion. The goods were dissimilar: premixed alcoholic drinks in class 33 versus energy drinks and non-alcoholic beverages in class 32. The marks, assessed globally, created different overall impressions through differences in colour, typeface, layout, and the presence of Uganda Waragi. Opposition dismissed with costs to the Applicant.

Outcome

Applicant permitted to proceed to registration of trademark VOLT in class 33

Facts

International Distillers Uganda Limited applied on 26 November 2014 to register the trademark VOLT for alcoholic beverages (except beers) in class 33. Toto Limited opposed the application on 31 August 2016, arguing that the Applicant's mark was identical with or nearly resembled their registered mark VOLT (registration number 47805) for energy drinks, non-alcoholic beverages, and related goods in class 32, and would likely confuse consumers. The Opponent's mark VOLT had been registered from 5 July 2013. The Applicant, a manufacturer of Uganda Waragi since 1968, had previously registered Uganda Waragi Volt (trademark number 49810) from 30 April 2014 in class 33. The Applicant's mark featured the word VOLT with additional elements including The Original Uganda Waragi with Ginger in stylized fonts on a yellow background. The Opponent's mark displayed VOLT in silver with blue outlines, with smaller text 440 MAS ENERGIA below. Evidence showed Uganda Waragi had grown from 2.7 million cases sold in 2008 to 5.5 million in 2016, establishing it as a super brand with significant reputation.

Issues

  1. Whether the trademarks are similar.
  2. Whether there is likelihood of confusion between the Applicant's and Opponent's mark.
  3. Whether the Applicant's VOLT label contravenes the provisions of the Trademarks Act.

Orders

  • Opposition dismissed.
  • Applicant shall proceed to register their mark subject to payment of the prescribed fees.
  • Opponent shall bear the costs of these proceedings.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Similarity Assessment — Global Approach — Dominant and Descriptive Elements
A trademark must be assessed as a whole in the first instance even if it contains both dominant and negligible or descriptive matter. Assessment of similarity cannot be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element unless all other components of the mark are negligible. The overall impression must be ascertained by analysing the components of a sign and their relative weight in the perception of the target public.
Trademarks — Descriptive Elements — Disregard in Assessment
Descriptive elements forming part of a compound mark should be disregarded in assessing similarity because the relevant public will not generally consider such elements as distinctive in the overall impression conveyed by the mark. Words that merely describe characteristics, ingredients, or qualities of goods are descriptive and do not contribute to distinctiveness.
Trademarks — Composite Marks — Independent Distinctive Role of Component
In a composite mark, an earlier mark or distinctive element used by a third party may maintain an independent distinctive role without necessarily constituting the dominant element. Where a component has acquired reputation and recognition through long use, it qualifies the dominant element so as to change the impact in the perception of the overall mark.
Trademarks — Likelihood of Confusion — Average Consumer Test
Likelihood of confusion must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably circumspect and observant but who rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between marks and must rely upon the imperfect picture kept in mind. Where differences in colour, size, font, style, and additional distinctive elements create a perceptible difference reinforced by a well-known brand component, likelihood of confusion is eliminated.
Trademarks — Similarity of Goods — Class 32 versus Class 33
Alcoholic beverages falling within class 33 are different from beers, mineral and aerated waters, and other non-alcoholic drinks falling in class 32 due to their nature, origin, ingredients, method of production, intended purpose, use, lack of substitutability, and lack of complementarity, even if some of those goods are to some extent in competition with each other or sold through the same trade channels.
Trademarks — Likelihood of Association versus Likelihood of Confusion
The mere association which the public might make between two trademarks as a result of their analogous semantic content or trading in the same channels of commerce is not in itself a sufficient ground for concluding that there is a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of association is distinct from likelihood of confusion.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (19)

  • PIANOTIST Co. Ltd (1906) 23 RPC 777
  • Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24
  • Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (Case C-342/97) [1999] ECR I-3819
  • Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v OHIM (Case C-334/05 P) [2007] ECR I-4529
  • Bimbo SA v OHIM (Case C-591/12 P)
  • Best Buy Concepts Inc v OHIM (Case T-122/01)
  • Frag Comercio Internacional SL v OHIM (Case T-162/08)
  • Alejandro v OHIM (Case T-129/01) [2003] ECR II-2251
  • Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 159
  • Medion AG v Thomson Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (Case C-120/04)
  • Anglo Fabrics (Bolton) Ltd & Anor v African Queen Ltd & Anor (HCCS No. 632 of 2006)
  • Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV [1999] ETMR 690
  • Australian Woollen Mills Ltd v FS Walton & Co Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 641
  • Tuskys (U) Ltd v Tusker Mattresses (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 3 of 2011)
  • British Sugar PLC v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281
  • Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (Case C-39/97)
  • J Lyons & Co Ltd's Application [1959] RPC 120
  • Mustafa Yilmaz v OHIM (Case T-584/10)
  • SABEL BV v Puma AG (Case C-251/95) [1997] ECR I-6191

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

International Distillers Uganda Limited v Toto Limited (Trademark Application 51324 of 2014) [2026] UGRSB 25 (29 April 2026)
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.