trademark. They were authorised to deal in "Purple Moon" blankets. In Annexure "C2"
JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD claim to be the manufacturers of
Purple Moon blankets and they sell the blankets to Numaa Industries in Uganda.
Finally in the affidavit deposed to on 1st March, 2017 by Muqtar Ali Zafar and particularly
paragraph 4 thereof it is deposed as follows:
“That in response to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Applicants affidavit in rejoinder, I am
informed by my lawyers which information I verily believe to be true that upon acquiring
certificates of translation from Makerere University, the owner of the trademark in
question is LUOYANG CITY GUANLINLIDE BLANKET FACTORY and neither
Linyi Grene Industry & Trading Co. Ltd nor PURPLE MOON TRADING LLC of Shouq
Al Kabeer Street, Deira Dubai, UAE as alleged by the Applicant. (Attached is a copy of
the translation and its attachment marked 'B' and 'C' respectively.)"
In paragraph 5 he deposed that on the basis of information of his lawyers, the Applicant cannot
seek protection from infringement of a Mark that is no authority from the owner of the Mark to
register or use the same.
It is clearly averred that the Respondents authority is derived from two companies namely a
letter from JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD which is attached to
paragraph 5 (iii) of the counterclaim and annexure B2 is a letter from Bingling Enterprises Ltd
where it is written that they authorised the Respondent to sell "Purple Moon" blankets all over
Uganda. Neither of those persons is LUOYANG CITY GUANLINLIDE BLANKET FACTORY
who is alleged to be the trademark owner. Notwithstanding the issue as to the extent of the
Respondents authority as to whether it covers a contest as to any trademark, it is clearly the
Respondent‟s evidence that it is not an agent of LUOYANG CITY GUANLINLIDE BLANKET
FACTORY which is the alleged trademark owner. On what authority would it challenge the
Applicant anyway?
The judgment of Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Obura in TECNO Telecom Ltd vs. Kigalo
Investments Ltd HCMC No. 0017 of 2011 concerned inter alia authority of a representative of
a trademark owner in Uganda. In that case an application was brought under section 45 and 46 of
the Trademarks Act 2010 to have the mark TECNO which had been registered in Uganda
removed from the register on the ground of proof of the registration of that mark in a country of
origin. The Applicant was an attorney of TECNO Telecom Ltd and dealt in phones. The
Applicant was an appointed agent in Uganda of the firm registered in Hong Kong. They dealt in
a phone called TECNO and registered the name as a trademark. On the question of locus standi
the Hon Judge held that the Applicant was an aggrieved party who can bring an action under
sections 45 and 46 of the Trademarks Act 2010 because the Applicant demonstrated that it is the
registered owner of the trademark TECNO and it manufactures and deals in TECNO phones in
Hong Kong, China.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style
20