Wakilii

Uganda Batteries Limited v Nile Batteries Limited (Civil Suit 917 of 2018)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 224 · 2023 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off
Decision
Suit dismissed

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 dismissed the plaintiff's suit for trademark and copyright infringement. The plaintiff failed to prove it had locus standi because the trademark it used in commerce differed from its registered trademark. Trade Marks Act s.34 prohibits actions for unregistered trademarks. Although the plaintiff proved copyright ownership in its warranty card, it failed to adduce evidence that the defendant reproduced or distributed the warranty card in violation of the plaintiff's rights. The private investigator was not called to testify and allegedly infringing materials were not produced in court.

Outcome

Suit dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a battery manufacturer, owned registered trademark UBL (number 19267, class 9) since 1994 and claimed copyright in its battery warranty card. In October 2018, the plaintiff learned the defendant was manufacturing batteries under the mark NBL with a warranty card allegedly similar to its own. The plaintiff obtained an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its intellectual property. The plaintiff alleged the defendant defied the injunction and later registered a different mark and produced a different warranty card. The plaintiff claimed trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The defendant denied all allegations, stating its mark was distinct and it had not sold batteries in the market.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a copyright in the alleged literary works contained in the warranty card and if so whether the defendant infringed the alleged copyright in the warranty card.
  2. Whether the defendant infringed on the plaintiff's trademark and copyright and/or passed off its batteries as the plaintiff's.
  3. What are the available remedies?

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • Each party will bear their own costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Copyright — Originality — Literary Works in Warranty Card
A literary work is original and protected by copyright where the expression originates with the author and is not copied from another work, even if the materials used are not entirely new. Copyright concerns originality of expression, not of ideas, and a creator may use pre-existing materials provided the arrangement, combination, or presentation is different from what was used before.
Copyright — Infringement — Burden of Proof
To constitute infringement of copyright under Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act s.46, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant duplicated or reproduced the copyright material for commercial purposes or for sale, and must adduce concrete evidence of the reproduction and distribution that prejudicially affected the owner's rights.
Trademarks — Locus Standi — Unregistered Trademarks
Under Trade Marks Act 2010 Part IV s.34, a person may not institute proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for an unregistered trademark. Where the trademark used in commerce differs from the registered trademark, the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an infringement action based on the unregistered mark.
Evidence — Failure to Produce Material Evidence — Anton Pillar Order
Where a plaintiff obtains an Anton Pillar order to access the defendant's premises and confiscate allegedly infringing items but fails to deposit the seized items in court, fails to file a return after execution of the order, and fails to call the private investigator who conducted the investigation to testify, the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving infringement.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.2
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.4
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.5
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.46(1)
  • Trade Marks Act 2010 Part IV s.34

Cases cited (6)

  • Stella Atal v Ann Abels Kiruta (HCCS No. 967 of 2004)
  • Emerson v Davies (1845) 3 Story 768 at 778-779
  • British Northrop Ltd v Texteam Blackburn Ltd [1974] RPC 57 at 68
  • Ssebagala v MTN (U) Ltd & Anor (HCCS No. 283 of 2012)
  • Lamwaka v M/s Mukono Bookshop (HCCS No. 326 of 2014)
  • Gasston and Harbour vs Bwavu Mpologoma Growers Co-operative Union Limited and others [1958] EA 549

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Batteries Limited v Nile Batteries Limited (Civil Suit 917 of 2018) [2023] UGCommC 224 (13 March 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.