Intellectual Property Law

J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Glaxo Group Ltd ((Civil Appeal No 18 of 2004)) [2006] UGSC 17 (3 October 2006);

Flynote: 

Search Summary: 

This is an appeal from the decision of the
Court of Appeal which reversed the decision of
the High Court upholding a ruling of the
Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The

Registrar had allowed an application by the
appellant who sought to register "RANTAC"
as a trademark. The application had been
opposed by the respondent on certain grounds.
At trial of the appeal, the court considered
whether it was a third or second appeal. The
court held that in the High Court, the parties in
the present case followed the procedure
currently in use for filing suits, namely filing
summary of evidence, list of witnesses, list of
documents and list of authorities.
Consequently, I think that the notice of motion
heard and determined in the High Court was an
originating motion by way of institution of
court proceedings (a type of special suit in the
wider sense) resulting in a special order
appealable as of right under S.66 of CPA to
Court of Appeal. The appeal to the Court of
Appeal was therefore a first appeal. The
background is that the appellant was the
registered proprietor of a trademark and the
respondent applied to the registrar to use an
identical trademark. The registrar resolved the
matter in favor of the applicant and the
respondent appealed to the High court which
allowed the grounds. An appeal to the court of
appeal was decided in the favor of the
respondent hence the appeal at the Supreme
Court on grounds of effect of agreement in
India, reliance on Russian decision and the
identity of the trademarks.

Headnote and Holding: 

The court held that

The appellant who applied for that trademark
bore the burden to disprove the elements of
confusion and deception. That the appellant
failed to discharge that burden. That the
Russian decision was not helpful in this case.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Intellectual Property Law