Wakilii

Maama Care Foundation v Podravka Prehrambena Industrija DD [2025] UGRSB 13

Tribunal · 2025 Opposition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Opposition to trademark registration before the Uganda Registration Services Bureau
Decision
Trademark registration opposition dismissed; applicant's mark permitted to proceed to registration

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 held that the applicant's trademark 'WAH' and device was not confusingly similar to the opponent's registered marks. Despite both marks featuring a baker's head, the striking colour differences, the addition of the word 'WAH', and the ribbon device created sufficient visual, phonetic, and conceptual distinction. The opposition was dismissed as the differences between the marks were not negligible and would not cause confusion among ordinary consumers.

Outcome

Trademark registration opposition dismissed; applicant's mark permitted to proceed to registration

Facts

Maama Care Foundation applied to register trademark number 63632 'WAH' and device in class 30 for confectioneries. The mark featured the word 'WAH' in stylized format with an exclamation mark, a baker's head wearing a yellow toque hat facing left with folded thumb and index finger, surrounded by a circular device with a ribbon at the base, coloured in yellow and red. Podravka Prehrambena Industrija DD, a Croatian company, opposed the registration on grounds that the applicant's mark was confusingly similar to its registered marks 52412 (class 29), 52411 (class 30), and 52413 (class 35), which featured a baker's head in a dark blue circular device. The opponent's mark showed a baker facing right with white toque hat. Hearing commenced on 22 March 2023 with adjournments for settlement negotiations. After the applicant's counsel withdrew instructions, the matter proceeded ex parte with the opponent filing submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's trademark 'WAH' and device in class 30 is confusingly similar to the opponent's registered trademarks numbers 52412 (class 29), 52411 (class 30), and 52413 (class 35).

Orders

  • Opposition dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion — Test for Assessment
In determining whether there is sufficient similarity between trademarks to lead to likelihood of confusion, the tribunal must consider both the look and sound of the marks, the goods to which they are applied, the nature and kind of customer likely to buy the goods, and all surrounding circumstances, judging what is likely to happen if each trademark is used in a normal way by the respective owners.
Trademarks — Assessment of Similarity — Global Appreciation Through Eyes of Average Consumer
Likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally taking account of all relevant factors, judged through the eyes of the average consumer who is deemed reasonably well informed and circumspect but who rarely makes direct comparisons and must rely on the imperfect picture kept in mind. The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not analyse its various details.
Trademarks — Colour Combinations as Distinctive Elements
Colour combinations play an important part in a trademark and serve the business purpose of indicating to potential buyers that goods were made by a particular proprietor. Colour combination is an important factor for consideration in assessing the visual and conceptual similarity of marks.
Trademarks — Dominant Components Test — When Applicable
Visual, aural and conceptual similarities of marks must normally be assessed by reference to overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components, but it is only when all other components of a complex mark are negligible that it is permissible to make the comparison solely on the basis of the dominant elements.
Trademarks — Double Similarity Requirement Under Section 25
Under section 25 of the Trademarks Act, for confusion to arise there must be double similarity: similarity between the marks and similarity between the goods or services associated with those marks. Where the alleged earlier mark is highly distinctive, evidence of similarity between the goods and services is still required.
Statutory Declarations — Proper Content — Matters of Fact Not Law
A statutory declaration, like an affidavit, should strictly state matters of fact and leave out matters of law. It should not be argumentative. Legal arguments should be made through written submissions, not in statutory declarations, as inclusion of legal matters can, depending on the degree, make the declaration defective.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Pianotist Co's Application (1906) 23 RPC 774
  • Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24
  • Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v Sterling Withrop Group Ltd [1975] 2 All ER 578
  • Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (Case C-39/97)
  • SABEL (Case C-251/95)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Maama Care Foundation v Podravka Prehrambena Industrija DD 2025 UGRSB 13 (2 June 2025)
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.