In this counterclaim, the Respondent/Counterclaimant is not even the authorised agent of the
alleged owner of the registered trademark.
In the case of Kampala Stocks Supermarket Co Ltd vs. Seven Days International Ltd, Civil
suit No. 112 of 2015, this court held that Uganda and China are parties to the Paris Convention
for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883 as amended. Secondly, the Paris Convention deals
with the territorial principle in Article 6 of the Paris Convention. Article 6 deals with the
conditions of registration and the independence of protection of the same mark in different
countries. It provides that the conditions for the filing and registration of trademarks shall be
determined in each country of the Union by its Domestic Legislation under article 6 (1). Article 6
(1) deals with the conditions for filing and registration of trademarks. Secondly article 6 (2)
provides that an application for registration of a trademark filed by a national of the country of
the Union in any country of the Union may not be refused or a registration be invalidated on the
ground that the filing, registration for renewal has not been done in the country of origin.
Article 6 (3) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property provides as
follows:
"A mark duly registered in the country of the Union shall be regarded as independent of
marks registered in the other countries of the Union, including the country of origin."
A trademark is a duly registered trademark in any country of the Union which shall be regarded
as independent of a similar or same trademark registered in other countries of the Union.
In this particular case, there is no application by the alleged owner of the Trademark in China for
registration of the trademark in Uganda. I agree with the submissions of the Applicant‟s Counsel
to extent relating to whether the registration of the Applicant can be impeached by the
Respondent.
The Respondent is not even an agent of the owner of the trademark registered in China. Any
owner of a trademark ought to register his or her trademark defensively in countries where goods
bearing the trademark are being sold or dealt in. It is the domestic law of the country where the
goods are sold that provides protection for the trademark and the principle of territoriality
supports the conclusion that any owner of a trademark should also register it under the domestic
law of the land where the goods or services represented by the mark are sold.
The Counterclaimant pleaded fraud of the Applicant/Plaintiff in the registration. It prays for
orders to cancel the registration. The principle is that a trademark which is registered in a country
that is a party to the Paris Convention shall be regarded as independent of trademarks registered
in other countries who are also parties to the Paris Convention.
The Applicant/Counter Defendant to the counterclaim is the registered proprietor of the
trademark. The registration of the trademark by other persons in China is for the moment not
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style
21