About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

United Republic of Tanzania

TZ020-j

Back

Kiwi European Holdings BV v Sajad Ali Limited, Commercial Case No. 26 of 2001, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Kiwi European Holdings BV v Sajad Ali Limited, Commercial Case No. 26 of 2001, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam Nsekela, J.

Date of Judgment: June 3, 2005

Facts

The plaintiff was the registered owner of the "KIWI" trade mark. One of the plaintiff’s representatives bought a KIWI shoe polish from the defendant's shop that was nearly identical to his "KIWI" product. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for trade mark infringement and passing off.

Holdings

(i) A single act of infringement by the defendant, evidenced by the counterfeit sale of the plaintiff's goods, is sufficient ground for the plaintiff to bring an action against the defendant.

(ii) The cumulative effect of sections 31 and 32(1)(a) of the Trade and Service Marks Act provides that the right to exclusive use upon registration cannot be infringed unless it is proved that the offending mark is either (i) identical with the registered trade mark or (ii) so nearly resembles the registered trade mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to the goods in respect of which the mark is registered.

(iii) The burden of proof is on the party alleging trade mark infringement. The plaintiff must prove a resemblance between the two marks that would cause deception.

(iv) The determination of similarity between the two marks has to be considered from the perspective of an ordinary person.

Decision

The use of the plaintiff's logo, "KIWI," by the defendant was likely to deceive or cause confusion in the market. The plaintiff successfully proved that the defendant infringed its registered trade mark "KIWI."