Wakilii

Power Horse Energy Drinks GMBH v San Miguel Brewing International Limited (Trademark Registration No. 55988 & 55989 of 2016)

Tribunal · [2026] UGRSB 35 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for cancellation of registered trademarks on grounds of similarity and likelihood of confusion
Decision
Application for cancellation dismissed; Respondent's trademarks remain validly registered

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 dismissed the application for cancellation of the RED HORSE trademarks. Held that the marks were not registered in error as no extension of time to oppose had been granted. The marks POWER HORSE and RED HORSE, when assessed holistically, are visually and conceptually distinct despite sharing the word 'Horse'. Energy drinks and beers, though in the same Nice Classification class, differ materially in nature, purpose and consumer expectation. No likelihood of confusion exists. The marks may lawfully coexist on the register.

Outcome

Application for cancellation dismissed; Respondent's trademarks remain validly registered

Facts

Power Horse Energy Drinks GMBH applied to cancel San Miguel Brewing International Limited's RED HORSE trademarks (Nos. 55988 and 55989) registered in Class 32, alleging similarity to its prior POWER HORSE mark and likelihood of confusion. Power Horse claimed the marks were registered in error because it had filed for an extension of time to oppose on 19 June 2020 and subsequently filed a notice of opposition on 27 August 2020, but the marks were registered on 14 September 2020. Power Horse argued that both marks incorporate the word 'Horse' and horse imagery, creating visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities. San Miguel contended that RED HORSE was duly examined and registered, that the marks coexist in over 60 jurisdictions, and that RED HORSE has been used since 1983. The hearing took place on 13 May 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the registration of the marks was done in error?
  2. Whether the marks are confusingly similar?
  3. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • Application for cancellation dismissed.
  • Respondent's marks to remain on the register with all legal protection.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Extension of Time to Oppose — Procedural Regularity
Under Regulation 79(1) of the Trademarks Regulations 2023, an extension of time to file a notice of opposition must first be granted by the Registrar before any subsequent action can be validly undertaken. A party cannot allege that a mark was registered in error when no extension of time had been granted. Where an extension is applied for, the party bears the responsibility to ascertain whether the request has been granted or rejected. In the absence of a positive grant, any action taken is without legal foundation and is deemed null and void.
Trademarks — Statutory Interpretation — Literal Rule
The literal rule is the primary rule of statutory interpretation, requiring that statutory provisions be given their ordinary and natural meaning where the language is clear and unambiguous. Under this approach, words are to be given their plain, ordinary meaning, without reference to external considerations such as context, legislative intent, purpose, or broader symbolism. Where the words are clear and unambiguous and the court is capable of assigning meaning and purpose to the said words, the court will look no further than the literal rule.
Trademarks — Similarity Assessment — Anti-Dissection Rule
Composite marks must be considered in their entirety and not broken down into their individual components for purposes of comparison. The likelihood of confusion must be assessed based on the overall impression of the mark created in the mind of the average consumer, who typically retains only a general recollection of a mark. While it is permissible to examine individual elements as a preliminary step, such analysis must not displace the overarching requirement of a holistic comparison. Greater weight may be accorded to the dominant or essential features of a composite mark, but the shared use of a common element is insufficient in itself to give rise to a likelihood of confusion where the overall graphical representation of the marks is different.
Trademarks — Average Consumer Test — Level of Attention
The average consumer is a legal construct representing a reasonably well-informed, reasonably observant, and circumspect person within the relevant sector of the public. This consumer is deemed to perceive marks in their entirety, focusing on their overall impression rather than an analytical dissection of individual elements. The level of attention may vary: the average consumer of everyday consumer goods is presumed to exercise a relatively low degree of attention, whereas the consumer of specialized or expensive goods will exhibit a correspondingly higher standard of care. The consumer rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between marks and must rely on the imperfect picture of the mark held in their memory.
Trademarks — Similarity of Goods — Nice Classification Not Determinative
While the Nice Classification system is widely and universally used by trademark registries throughout the world, it does not explicitly mention all types of goods or services and is not entirely determinative of the similarity or dissimilarity of goods or services. In assessing the similarity of goods or services, all relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account, including their nature, their end users, their method of use, and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. Energy drinks and beers, though both falling within Class 32, differ materially in nature, composition, purpose and consumer expectation. Energy drinks are non-alcoholic stimulants intended to boost energy and alertness, while beers are alcoholic beverages consumed for recreational or social purposes. The goods are not complementary and do not compete with each other.
Trademarks — Likelihood of Confusion — Global Assessment
The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. What is required is not a mechanical application of a closed checklist, but a reasoned evaluation of all factors capable of influencing the likelihood of confusion. While the mere coexistence of two marks on domestic or foreign registers is not conclusive evidence that the marks are dissimilar or incapable of causing confusion, where the Registrar has independently assessed the similarity of the marks in accordance with domestic law and found no likelihood of confusion, it is further notable and persuasive that the same marks have been registered and coexist on the registers of several common law jurisdictions.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Pianotist Co. Ltd (1906) 23 RPC 77
  • de Cordova v Vick (1951) 68 RPC 103
  • Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (Case C-342/97)
  • Gut Springenheide GmbH v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt (Case C-210/96)
  • Bravado Merchandising Services Ltd v Mainstream Publishing (Edinburgh) Ltd [1995] 4 All ER 812
  • Sabel BV v Puma AG (Case C-251/95)
  • South India Beverages Pvt Ltd v General Mills Marketing Inc (No. 961/2013 in CS (OS) 110/2013)
  • British Sugar PLC v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281
  • Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (Case C-39/97)
  • Southern Cross Refrigerating Co v Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 592
  • In re The Australian Wine Importers Ltd (1889) 41 Ch D 278
  • Reckitt & Colman (Australia) Ltd v Boden (1945) 70 CLR 84
  • In re Jellinek's Application (1946) 63 RPC 59
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Siraje Hassan Kajura & Others (SCCA No. 9 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Power Horse Energy Drinks GMBH v San Miguel Brewing International Limited (Trademark Registration No. 55988 & 55989 of 2016) [2026] UGRSB 35 (23 June 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.