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

TZ028-j

Back

Rig Co. Limited Water Com Tanzania v Watercom Tanzania Limited, Civil Case No. 150 of 2018, High Court of Tanzania Dar es Salaam

Rig Co. Limited Water Com Tanzania v Watercom Tanzania Limited, Civil Case No. 150 of 2018, High Court of Tanzania Dar es Salaam

De - Mello J.

Date of Judgment: April 1, 2021

Facts

Both the plaintiff and the defendant are companies registered in Tanzania. The plaintiff, a merchant who sells water under the registered trade mark "RIG Afya NATURAL DRINKING WATER," sued the defendant, a company that manufactures and sells drinking water under the registered trade mark "Afya." The plaintiff, the proprietor of the registered trade mark "RIG Afya NATURAL DRINKING WATER," claimed the defendant infringed its trade mark. The plaintiff requested an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to infringe its registered trade mark. The defendant claimed that they did not infringe on the plaintiff’s trade mark because all the procedures and requirements of registration with BRELA, a regulatory institution, were followed. The issue is whether the defendants have infringed on the plaintiff's trade mark.

Holdings

(i) Once there is lawful registration, the proprietor is regarded as having exclusive rights over the trade and service mark as per section 31 of the Trade and Service Marks Act ("Act").

(ii) Section 32 (1)(a) of the Act provides a test that requires the marks to be identical or nearly identical so as to deceive or cause confusion in order to demonstrate infringement.

(iii) When comparing trade marks, the court must evaluate their elements in their entirety rather than dissecting them, based on the "Rule of Anti-Dissection."

(iv) When dealing with cases of trade mark infringement involving composite marks, courts must consider the composite marks in their entirety as an indivisible whole rather than dissecting them into their component parts and comparing them with the corresponding parts of a rival mark to determine the likelihood of confusion.

(v) Trade marks are defined in the WIPO journal as distinctive signs identifying certain goods or services produced or provided by an individual or a company, which may be one word or a combination of words, letters, and numerals; they may consist of drawings, symbols, or three-dimensional signs, such as the shape and packaging of goods.

(vi) A visible sign under section 2 of the Act is a sign that is capable of graphic reproduction, including a word, name, brand, devise, heading, label, ticket, signature letter number, relief, stamp, vignette, emblem, or any of these in combination.

Decision

The plaintiff failed to prove resemblance in the marks and confusion because the plaintiff's trade mark is comprised of the word "RIG" written in white, followed by a drop of blue water. Below it is the word "Afya" written in blue, and "NATURAL DRINKING WATER" in curved capital letters. There is also green grass at the bottom with a blue background. Meanwhile, the defendant’s logo contains an image of a yellow camel on the top left side of the mark, sprayed with blue water, and the word "Afya" in the middle, center-written in yellow, in a distinctive font. As a result, there are no triable similarities between the two trade marks.