Wakilii

Trust Sate Uganda Ltd v Ninsima Moreen (Trademark Application No. UG T 2024 082777)

Tribunal · [2025] UGRSB 16 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Opposition to trademark application for registration of the mark IMITRUST in class 1
Decision
Trademark application refused; opponent may proceed with her own application

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 trademark application was filed in bad faith. The applicant company was incorporated by Bashaija Moses, who had previously sold his agrochemical business including rights to the product branded IMITRUST to the opponent and covenanted not to engage in similar business. Filing for the trademark through a newly incorporated company after selling the business rights constituted dishonest conduct intended to frustrate the opponent's freedom to operate. The application was refused under section 23 of the Trademarks Act as likely to deceive and contrary to law.

Outcome

Trademark application refused; opponent may proceed with her own application

Facts

The opponent purchased an agrochemical business from Bashaija Moses on 9 October 2023, including rights to products branded IMITRUST. The sale agreement included a covenant that Bashaija would not engage in similar business in Uganda. The manufacturer subsequently transferred distribution rights to the opponent's company. After the sale, Bashaija incorporated Trust Sate Uganda Ltd on 25 January 2024 with 10 shares. On 14 April 2024, the applicant company filed to register IMITRUST as a trademark in class 1. On 2 July 2024, Bashaija transferred his shares to another director. The opponent discovered the application and filed opposition on grounds of bad faith, arguing Bashaija was using the applicant company to frustrate her commercial interests in a product whose rights he had already sold.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's application for registration of the trademark IMITRUST was filed in bad faith to the opponent's detriment.

Orders

  • Opposition succeeds.
  • Application for registration of trademark IMITRUST (Application No. UG/T/2024/082777) refused.
  • Opponent is free to proceed with registration of trademark application number UG/T/2024/083284.
  • Costs awarded to the opponent to be paid by the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Trademarks — Bad Faith — Definition and Assessment
Bad faith in trademark law presupposes a dishonest state of mind or intention and must be understood in the context of trade, involving conduct inconsistent with honest practices intended to undermine third party interests or obtain exclusive rights for purposes other than indicating origin.
Trademarks — Bad Faith — Subjective Intention Assessed Objectively
The intention of an applicant for a trademark is a subjective factor to be determined objectively by the hearing officer through an overall assessment taking into account all factual circumstances relevant to the particular case.
Trademarks — Opposition Proceedings — Burden of Proof
The burden of proving bad faith against a trademark applicant lies with the opponent, and failure by the applicant to file evidence by statutory declaration in response leaves the opponent's evidence unchallenged, deemed admitted, and accepted as inherently credible and probably true.
Trademarks — Bad Faith — Circumventing Contractual Obligations
Where a person sells business rights including product branding rights and covenants not to engage in similar business, subsequently incorporating a company to file for trademark registration of the same product brand constitutes bad faith and dishonest conduct intended to indirectly circumvent contractual obligations and frustrate the purchaser's freedom to operate.
Trademarks — Section 23 Prohibition — Likely to Deceive or Contrary to Law
The Registrar shall not register a trademark the use of which would be likely to deceive or would be contrary to law. Filing for a trademark in bad faith is both deceptive and contrary to law within the meaning of section 23 of the Trademarks Act and constitutes a valid ground for opposition.
Trademarks — Bad Faith as Ground for Opposition
Bad faith can be raised as a ground for opposition to trademark registration because it involves registering a mark intended to be used in a manner that can deceive within the meaning of section 23 of the Trademarks Act, and bad faith is illegal conduct recognized as a general principle of law across jurisdictions.
Trademarks — Costs — Registrar's Discretion
Under section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the Registrar has discretion to award costs as considered reasonable and may direct how and by which parties costs are to be paid, with such order enforceable as a court order after obtaining leave of court.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Elite Gold Ltd v Indo Bali Distributors Ltd (Consolidated Trademark Cancellation Nos. 045697, 043533, 032264)
  • Sky Kick UK Ltd v Sky Ltd [2024] UKSC 36
  • Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Case C-529/07)
  • Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO (Case C-104/18)
  • Nampa v Ssebagala (Civil Suit No. 913 of 2004)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH (Case C-529/07)
  • Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1989] QB 433

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Trust Sate Uganda Ltd v Ninsima Moreen (Trademark Application No. UG T 2024 082777) [2025] UGRSB 16 (8 July 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.