Wakilii

Procter Gamble Company v Momeasy Enterprises Limited (Trademark Application 73609 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2023] UGRSB 11 · 2023 Opposition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Opposition to trademark applications for registration of marks in classes 10 and 21
Decision
Opposition dismissed; applicant permitted to proceed with registration of trademarks

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 Tribunal dismissed the opposition by Procter & Gamble Company to Momeasy Enterprises Limited's trademark applications. Held that the applicant's marks, featuring the word 'Momeasy' with color combinations and a stylized letter 'M', are not confusingly similar to the opponent's 'Pampers' marks and heart-rayed devices when assessed as a whole. The marks are sufficiently distinctive, the goods serve different purposes despite targeting the same end-users, and there was no evidence of bad faith in the application. The applicant was permitted to proceed with registration.

Outcome

Opposition dismissed; applicant permitted to proceed with registration of trademarks

Facts

Momeasy Enterprises Limited applied to register two trademarks (Nos. 2021/73609 and 2021/73610) featuring the word 'Momeasy' with a stylized letter 'M' and color combinations, in classes 10 and 21 for baby care products including feeding bottles, teethers, training cups, and brushes. Procter & Gamble Company, proprietor of the 'Pampers' trademark and several heart-rayed device marks registered in classes 3, 5, and 16 for disposable diapers and wipes, opposed the applications. The opponent alleged confusing similarity based on the stylized 'M' in the applicant's mark resembling its heart-rayed devices, likelihood of confusion due to similar end-users, and bad faith. The applicant is a Ugandan subsidiary of Guangzhou Ideal Houseware Co. Ltd, which holds international registration for the mark. The applicant's marks have been successfully registered in multiple jurisdictions including China, UK, Kenya, and others.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's marks are confusingly similar to the opponent's registered trademarks?
  2. Whether the applicant's marks are sufficiently distinctive to distinguish the applicant's mark from those of the opponent?
  3. Whether the applicant's applications were made in bad faith?

Orders

  • Opposition dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Applicant to proceed with registration of trademark applications.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademark Opposition — Confusing Similarity — Global Assessment Test
In assessing confusing similarity between trademarks, a global assessment must be conducted taking into account all relevant factors including visual, aural and conceptual similarities, the overall impression created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components, the nature and use of the goods, their end-users, and whether the goods are in competition. A trademark must be assessed as a whole and not by isolating individual components unless all other components are negligible.
Trademark Opposition — Color Combinations as Distinctive Elements
Color combinations form part of a trademark and cannot be ignored in assessing similarity and likelihood of confusion. Where color combinations serve the business purpose of indicating to potential buyers that goods originate from a particular manufacturer, they constitute a valid trademark element capable of distinguishing goods.
Trademark Opposition — Similarity of Goods — Different Classes
In assessing similarity of goods, all relevant factors relating to the goods themselves must be considered including their nature, intended purpose, method of use, whether they are in competition or complementary. Goods in different NICE classification classes serving different purposes are not similar even if they share the same end-users, and are less likely to cause confusion.
Trademark Registration — Distinctiveness — Permitted User
A trademark applicant who is a permitted user of an internationally registered mark under section 49 of the Trademarks Act 2010 has sufficient proprietary rights to apply for registration. The territoriality principle permits registration in Uganda even where the mark is internationally associated with a different entity, provided the applicant is authorized.
Trademark Opposition — Bad Faith — Pleading and Proof Requirements
Bad faith must be specifically pleaded with clear particulars in the grounds of opposition and proved by cogent evidence. Mere adoption of a mark with knowledge of existing similar marks and similarity alone are insufficient to establish bad faith. Bad faith includes dishonesty and dealings falling short of standards of acceptable commercial behavior.
Trademark Opposition — Copyright Infringement Claims — Jurisdiction
The Registrar of Trademarks sitting under the Trademarks Act does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a trademark application infringes copyright in an opponent's mark. Allegations of copyright infringement constitute a separate dispute requiring independent judicial determination and cannot be determined in trademark opposition proceedings.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (18)

  • Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Inc (Case C-39/97)
  • Sabel v Puma AG (1998) RPC 199
  • Procter & Gamble Company v Madiscom (Moroccan Commission No. 9049/2022)
  • El Corte Ingles SA v OHIM (Case T-183)
  • Kerly on Trademarks (13 Edition) at page 609, para 609
  • Erectico case
  • Electrolux Ltd v Electrix Ltd (1954) 71 RPC 23
  • Sabel BV v Puma AG (Case C-251/95)
  • Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (Case C-529/07)
  • Gromax Plasticulture Ltd v Don & Low Non Wovens Ltd (1999) RPC
  • Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24
  • Pianotist Co's Application (1906) 23 RPC 774
  • Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v Sterling-Winthrop Group Ltd [1975] All ER 578
  • Eurocermex v OHIM (Case C-286/04 P) [2005] ECR I-5797
  • Sazerac Brands LLC v Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited [2020] EWHC 2424 (Ch)
  • Robert Mwesigwa and Another v Bank of Uganda (HCT-00-CC-CS-0588 of 2003)
  • Sock World International Ltd Trademark Application, R.P.C 11
  • Case No. sd2021/0084794 (Colombia)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Procter Gamble Company v Momeasy Enterprises Limited (Trademark Application 73609 of 2021) 2023 UGRSB 11 (24 October 2023)
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.