Wakilii

Tootal Broadhurst Lee Company Ltd v Ahamed and Sons Ltd (Consolidated Civil Case Nos. 281 and 350 of 1950 (Mombasa))

East African Court of Appeal · Tootal Broadhurst Lee Company Ltd v Ahamed and Sons Ltd (Consolidated Civil Case Nos. 281 and 350 of 1950 (Mombasa)) [1951] EACA 340 (1 January 1951) · 1951 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated civil suits for infringement of registered designs
Decision
Plaintiffs granted injunction, delivery up of infringing fabrics, and account of profits

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 court held that certificates of registration from the Patent Office are not admissible under sections 74-77 of the Evidence Act as they are not documents open to public inspection and the certificate was not written at the foot of the copy as required. However, the documents are admissible under section 82 as they would be admissible in England under section 24 of the Registered Designs Act 1949. The court found infringement established where the defendant sold fabric bearing designs identical to the plaintiff's registered designs. The plaintiffs are entitled to an account of profits as equitable relief, as courts exercise this remedy in equity for design infringement cases, notwithstanding the claim for damages in the plaint.

Outcome

Plaintiffs granted injunction, delivery up of infringing fabrics, and account of profits

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed infringement of registered designs Nos. 413032 and 413422. In November 1948, Khandwalla and Company (affiliated to the defendant company) purchased three lengths of cotton fabric printed with the plaintiffs' registered designs from the plaintiffs through their agents. Subsequently in 1950, the defendants were found to have imported and sold printed cotton fabric manufactured in Japan bearing designs identical to those of the plaintiffs. The designs were identical in every respect, differing only in fabric quality and colour. The plaintiffs sought to prove their ownership of the registered designs through documents bearing the seal of the Patent Office of Great Britain, purporting to be copies of the certificates of registration together with certificates signed by an officer authorized by the Board of Trade under the Registered Designs Act 1949.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the designs in question based on documents bearing the seal of the Patent Office of Great Britain.
  2. Whether the documents produced are admissible as certified copies of public documents under sections 74-77 of the Evidence Act.
  3. Whether the documents are admissible under section 82 of the Evidence Act.
  4. Whether there has been infringement of the registered designs by the defendants.
  5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an account of profits as equitable relief despite claiming damages in the plaint.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs.
  • Injunction granted restraining the defendants from infringing the registered designs.
  • Defendants to deliver up the offending fabrics.
  • Defendants to account for profits realized on the sale of the infringing fabrics.
  • Payment of such profits to the plaintiffs by way of damages for the infringements.
  • Costs of the suits awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Public Documents — Certified Copies — Admissibility under sections 74-77 Evidence Act
A certificate of registration of a design issued by the Controller General of Patents and Designs, though a public document, is not a document which any person has a right to inspect within the meaning of section 76 of the Evidence Act, and therefore cannot be proved by means of certified copies under sections 74-77.
Evidence — Section 82 Evidence Act — Documents Admissible in England — Foreign Public Documents
A document bearing the seal of the Patent Office of Great Britain and certified by an officer authorized by the Board of Trade is admissible under section 82 of the Evidence Act to prove registration of a design, as such documents would be admissible in England under section 24 of the Registered Designs Act 1949 without proof of authentication.
Evidence — Certified Copies — Form Requirements — Section 76 Evidence Act
Section 76 of the Evidence Act requires that a certificate authenticating a copy of a public document must be written at the foot of the copy itself, not on a separate sheet of paper.
Intellectual Property — Registered Designs — Infringement — Identity of Designs
Infringement of a registered design is established where the allegedly infringing fabric bears a design identical in every respect to the registered design, even if there are differences in the quality of the fabric and the colour of the designs.
Intellectual Property — Registered Designs — Remedies — Account of Profits — Equitable Relief
In infringement of registered design cases, courts may order an account of profits as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of express statutory provision for such relief, as courts exercise this remedy in equity and not in pursuance of statutory power.
Civil Procedure — Remedies — Election Between Damages and Account of Profits
A plaintiff who claims damages in the plaint but also seeks 'such other relief as may be just and equitable' is not debarred from seeking an account of profits, provided the plaintiff makes clear during the proceedings that they are claiming one remedy or the other and not both.

Legislation cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tootal Broadhurst Lee Company Ltd v Ahamed and Sons Ltd (Consolidated Civil Case Nos. 281 and 350 of 1950 (Mombasa)) [1951] EACA 340 (1 January 1951)
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.