Wakilii

Migoo Industrial and Trading Company (U) Limited v Rida International Industry (U) Limited (Civil Suit 359 of 2019)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 145 · 2021 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for infringement of industrial design, passing off, and damages. Defendant's defence struck out; proceedings ex parte.
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with permanent injunction, substantial damages, interest, and costs.

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 the defendant infringed the plaintiff's registered industrial design for gumboots by manufacturing and selling gumboots of an identical design, and that the defendant passed off its products as those of the plaintiff. The court granted a permanent injunction, awarded special damages of UGX 6,589,795,284 for lost profits from forced price reductions, and general damages of UGX 5,500,000,000 for continuing harm.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with permanent injunction, substantial damages, interest, and costs.

Facts

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of gumboots under the MIGOO trademark since 2012, commissioned one Mr Li Dong Biao to design an industrial mould for production. In 2016, Mr Li Dong Biao incorporated the defendant company which began manufacturing and selling gumboots identical in design, shape, colour and sizes to the plaintiff's, but of inferior quality and at a lower price. The plaintiff registered its industrial design on 18 February 2019 under reference UG/D/2018/00049, though the defendant had registered a design on 28 August 2018. The plaintiff sued for infringement and passing off. The defendant's defence was struck out for being filed out of time, and the suit proceeded ex parte. Evidence established that customers confused the two products, that the defendant's products undercut the plaintiff's sales, and that Mr Li Dong Biao had used the plaintiff's specifications to copy the design.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff's industrial design in respect of the gumboots.
  2. Whether or not the defendant passed off her gumboots as those of the plaintiff.
  3. What remedies are available to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, employees, agents, assigns or persons claiming under it from reproducing the plaintiff's industrial design registered as UG/D/2018/00049 in the manufacture of gumboots, importing, offering for sale and selling gumboots reproducing the protected industrial design, or stocking gumboots of that design for the purposes of offering them for sale or selling them.
  • Special damages of UGX 6,589,795,284.
  • General damages of UGX 5,500,000,000.
  • Interest on the awards at 15% per annum from 3 May 2019 until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Industrial Designs — Prior User Exception to First-to-File Principle
Where two persons independently register the same industrial design, priority ordinarily goes to the earlier filing date under sections 72(2) and 17(3) of the Industrial Property Act 2014. However, this priority has no effect against a 'prior user' who in good faith, before the filing date, was already using the design for their enterprise within Uganda. The prior user exception prevents deprivation of the right to continue doing what was already being done before the later application was filed.
Industrial Design Infringement — Test for Substantial Similarity
To establish infringement of a registered industrial design, the owner must prove that in the eye of an ordinary observer giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the protected and accused designs are substantially the same. The comparison is made on an ocular basis assessing the overall visual impression, taking account of imperfect recollection. If the resemblance is such as to deceive an observer inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, infringement is established.
Industrial Designs — Concept of the 'Informed User'
For purposes of assessing industrial design infringement, the 'informed user' is a person who is knowledgeable of the design in question, familiar with the relevant market, and may be a user of the product, but is neither an ordinary consumer nor an expert. The informed user is particularly observant either through personal experience or extensive knowledge of the sector, perceives a design as a whole without analysing minimal details, and shows a relatively high degree of attention when using the products concerned.
Industrial Designs — Ornamental versus Functional Features
Registered industrial designs protect only the visual ornamental or aesthetic features of a product, not its functional or technical aspects. Linear contours and visual features that are exclusively aesthetic creations determining the external appearance of a product, having little or nothing to do with functionality or usability, are protectable as industrial designs where they are used to improve marketability by making the product more attractive or appealing.
Passing Off — Elements and Application to Product Get-Up
To succeed in a passing off action, the plaintiff must prove three elements: a goodwill or reputation attached to the relevant goods; a misrepresentation by the defendant (whether intentional or not) leading or likely to lead the public to believe the defendant's goods are those of the plaintiff; and actual or likely damage by reason of that misrepresentation. The get-up or 'look-and-feel' of a product can form the basis of a passing off claim where it has come to be closely associated with the plaintiff's product in the minds of consumers.
Industrial Design Infringement — Permanent Injunction as Remedy
Where industrial design infringement is proven and monetary damages will not suffice to restrain the defendant from continued infringement to the detriment of the plaintiff's business, a permanent injunction is the appropriate remedy. Under section 93 of the Industrial Property Act 2014, the court may grant an injunction to prevent imminent infringement or prohibit continuation of infringement once it has started.
Special Damages for Design Infringement — Proof and Calculation
Special damages for industrial design infringement must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, though strict proof does not necessarily require documentary evidence. Where a plaintiff proves forced price reductions resulting directly from the defendant's infringing products undercutting the market, the loss per unit multiplied by units sold during the infringement period constitutes recoverable special damages. Tax returns and accountant testimony may suffice as strict proof.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Industrial Property Act 3 of 2014 s.71
  • Industrial Property Act 3 of 2014 s.72(2)
  • Industrial Property Act 3 of 2014 s.17(3)
  • Industrial Property Act 3 of 2014 s.41(1)
  • Industrial Property Act 3 of 2014 s.79
  • Industrial Property Act 3 of 2014 s.93
  • Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Article 26
  • Civil Procedure Act s.26(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27(2)

Cases cited (25)

  • In re Clarke's Design, [1896] 2 38, at p. 44
  • In re Read & Greswell's Design, 42 Ch. D. 200, at p. 262
  • Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and Another [2010] Ch 503
  • Dover Limited v Nürnberger Celluloidwaren Fabrik Gebrüder Wolff [1910] 2 Ch 25
  • AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] FSR 572
  • Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and another [2011] 4 All ER 817
  • In the Matter of Rollason's Registered Design (1898) 15 RPC 441 at 447
  • Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v. OHIM, PepsiCo Inc (C-281/10P)
  • PepsiCo v. Grupo Promer Mon Graphic, C-281/10 P, EU:C:2011:679
  • Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v. OHIM - Gandia Blasco (Armchair), T-357/12, EU:T:2014:55
  • Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat)
  • Reckitt and Coleman Properties Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491
  • Marengo v Daily Sketch [1948] 1 All ER 406
  • Mixed Chicks LLC, v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1093
  • Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v Cadbury Uk Ltd [2017] WLR (D) 331
  • Microfibres Inc v. Girdhar And Co. and others, 128 (2006) DLT 238, 2006 (32) PTC 157 Del
  • Procter and Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 3154 (Ch)
  • Borham-Carter v. Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
  • Masaka Municipal Council v. Semogerere [1998-2000] HCB 23
  • Musoke David v. Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1990-1994] E.A. 219
  • Kyambadde v. Mpigi District Administration, [1983] HCB 44
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v AS Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 234 of 2011)
  • Kinyera v The Management Committee of Laroo Boarding Primary School (High Court Civil Suit No. 99 of 2013)

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.

Migoo Industrial and Trading Company (U) Limited v Rida International Industry (U) Limited (Civil Suit 359 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 145 (28 June 2021)
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.