News
Court Upholds Shs 20M Damages Against Company for Selling Counterfeit HP Toner Cartridges
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by China New Future (Uganda) Ltd, upholding a decision that found the company guilty of importing and selling counterfeit Hewlett Packard (HP) toner cartridges.
In a unanimous decision delivered in Kampala, a panel of three Justices, Monica Mugenyi, Eva Luswata, and Jessy Byaruhanga Rugyema agreed with an earlier High Court ruling that determined China New Future had infringed on HP’s registered trademarks by importing toner cartridges bearing the HP name and logo.
The High Court, in a 2014 ruling by Justice Geoffrey Namundi, had issued a permanent injunction restraining the company from using the HP or Hewlett-Packard mark on any of its products. The court also ordered the seizure and destruction of all counterfeit HP products in the company’s possession.
Additionally, the judge awarded Shs 20 million in general damages to HP, part of a larger claim that had initially sought Shs 100 million
Dissatisfied with the outcome, China New Future lodged an appeal, arguing that the High Court had erred in both fact and law by declaring their products counterfeit without adequate proof, and by awarding damages in the absence of demonstrated financial loss.
However, in the latest ruling, the Court of Appeal dismissed these claims.
“The allegation that the toner boxes were opened in the absence of the Appellant and could have been tampered with is not supported by any evidence and is a mere suspicion,” the ruling stated.
“I thus find that the Appellant’s goods were counterfeit and were an infringement on the Respondent’s trademark.”
On the question of damages, the Justices held that HP had clearly demonstrated trademark infringement and the likelihood of commercial loss.
“I am unable to fault the learned trial Judge for exercising his discretion to award general damages and costs. I therefore find no reason for setting aside the award of general damages,” the ruling further read.
The decision reaffirms the judiciary’s position on the protection of intellectual property and offers a precedent in Uganda’s growing fight against counterfeit products in the market.
Comments
