Wakilii

Krystalline Salt Limited v SDT Group of Companies (Trademark Application 40233 of 2009)

Tribunal · [2024] UGRSB 5 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Opposition to trademark application filed in 2009, heard after administrative delay and fresh scheduling in 2024
Decision
Trademark application refused on grounds of confusing similarity to opponent's registered mark

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 applicant's trademark JJABARI is confusingly similar to the opponent's registered trademark HABARI under section 25 of the Trademarks Act 2010. The marks are visually, aurally, and conceptually similar, both featuring coconut tree devices in near-identical design and phonetically similar word elements. The goods covered are identical. An average consumer acting with reasonable care would likely confuse the two marks. Opposition succeeded; each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Trademark application refused on grounds of confusing similarity to opponent's registered mark

Facts

On 19 August 2009, S.D.T Group of Companies Ltd applied to register the trademark JJABARI in Class 30 for breads, biscuits, cakes, pastry, confectionery, salt, and related goods. Krystalline Salt Limited, a Kenyan salt manufacturer, opposed the application on grounds that JJABARI is confusingly similar to its registered trademark HABARI (registration No. UG/T/1994/19105) covering the same goods. Krystalline acquired rights to HABARI via deed of assignment dated 20 May 2010, with assignment effective retrospectively from 9 September 2013. The opposition was filed in 2009 but experienced significant administrative delay. After fresh scheduling in 2023-2024, the matter proceeded with only the opponent participating, as the applicant's advocates had ceased to have instructions and the applicant did not respond to service by registered post.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's trademark is confusingly similar to the opponent's registered trademark?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Opposition succeeds.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Confusing Similarity — Test for Likelihood of Confusion
To determine whether a trademark application should be refused on grounds of confusing similarity under section 25 of the Trademarks Act 2010, the tribunal must consider the marks by their look and sound, the goods to which they are applied, the nature and kind of customer likely to buy those goods, and all surrounding circumstances, assessing whether use of both marks in a normal way would lead to confusion in the minds of the public.
Trademarks — Assessment of Similarity — Visual, Aural, and Conceptual Comparison
In assessing similarity and likelihood of confusion between trademarks, each mark must be looked at as a whole in comparison to the other, examining visual, aural, and conceptual similarity to determine the overall impression created by the mark, though individual components may be examined in the course of the overall assessment.
Trademarks — Policy Objective — Guarantee of Origin and Fair Competition
The essential function of a trademark is to guarantee the identity of origin of the marked product to the consumer without any possibility of confusion, enabling the consumer to distinguish the product from others of different origin. Registration of distinct marks that do not confuse consumers is inextricably linked to the public policy objective of ensuring fair competition in the market.
Trademarks — Likelihood of Confusion — Test of Average Consumer
The test for likelihood of confusion is whether an average customer acting with reasonable care would be likely to be confused by the mark complained of. The likelihood of confusion is heightened when the goods covered by the competing marks are the same or closely related.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Pianotist Co's application (1906) 23 RPC 774
  • Eurocermex v OHIM (Case C-286/04 P) [2005] ECR I-5797
  • Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Inc (Case C-39/97)
  • HAG GF (HAG II) (Case C-10/89) [1990] ECR I-3711
  • Standard Signs (U) Ltd v Standard Signs Ltd and Another (HCCS No. 540 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Krystalline Salt Limited v SDT Group of Companies (Trademark Application 40233 of 2009) 2024 UGRSB 5 (2 May 2024)
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.