The court observed that the agreement entered into by the parties in India
was persuasive in Uganda but the names were to identical in sound as the
only difference was the first letter and on the complaint that the appellant
had not led evidence to prove that confusion would be created, the court
observed that the product had not been registered and therefore not on
market to enable the appellant carry out the survey.
The court further observed that the trial court had not abused its
discretion by allowing registration of identical names as her finding was
that the two identical products co-existed in India.
In the result, the court granted an injunction to stop the registrar of
trademarks from registering the respondent’s name.