À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX043-j

Retour

High Court of Uganda, Commercial Division [2021]: Migoo Industrial and Trading Company (U) Limited v Rida International Industry (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 359 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 145

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 2: Emerging Issues in Industrial Designs

 

High Court of Uganda [2021]: Migoo Industrial and Trading Company (U) Limited v Rida International Industry (U) Limited (Civil Suit No. 359 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 145

 

Date of judgment: June 28, 2021

Issuing authority: High Court of Uganda (Commercial Division)

Level of the issuing authority: First Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>

Subject matter: Industrial Designs; Enforcement of IP and Related Laws

Plaintiff: Migoo Industrial and Trading Company (U) Limited

Defendant: Rida International Industry (U) Limited

Keywords: Industrial design, Technical function, Infringement

 

Basic facts: The plaintiff’s claim is that it is the registered owner of the trademark MIGOO.  Sometime during the year 2012, the plaintiff’s director procured from China an industrial mold for the production of gumboots and began the production of gumboots under the MIGOO trademark.  These gumboots are sold in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania, among other markets.  Around the year 2016, the person that had been contracted in China to design the mold for MIGOO incorporated a company in Uganda named “Rida International Industry Uganda Limited”, and began manufacturing and selling gumboots in the same markets, under the RIDA trademark.  The gumboots manufactured and sold by the defendant under that name are identical to those produced by the plaintiff in design, shape, color and sizes, save that the latter’s are cheaper and of a poorer quality.  The plaintiff claims that, as a result, the defendant’s activities caused confusion in the market and undercut its sales, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff.

 

The plaintiff registered an industrial design to protect its gumboots on February 18, 2019, after several years of having manufactured and sold its gumboots.  However, the defendant had successfully registered its own industrial design six months prior to that of the plaintiff, on August 28, 2018.

 

The plaintiff claimed general and special damages for infringement of its industrial design, passing off and fraud, a permanent injunction restraining further infringement, declarations and costs.

 

Held: The Court found that the key features of the gumboots in issue were the Shaft (the long tube that covers the area from the ankle to the calf which makes the boot so recognizable as a distinctive type of footwear); the Collar (the top edge of the shaft, where one inserts the foot, which is rim-padded for extra strength and comfort); the Vamp (the part of the boot that covers the top of the foot); the Counter (the back lower part of the boot where the heel sits); and the Instep (the arch inside the boot that distinguishes the left from the right foot).

 

The Court found that none of these ornamental aspects of the design were defined exclusively by the technical function of the article.  They had little or nothing to do with the functionality and usability of the product, but were exclusively aesthetic creations determining the external appearance of the product, clearly used to improve the product’s marketability by making it more attractive or appealing.  Further, the Court found that there was considerable scope for the design of such grooves, their individual characteristics and their specific arrangement.  The degree of freedom of the designer in designing such grooves was almost unlimited because such decoration can come in any combination of colors, patterns, and shapes.  The defendant’s designer would have had sufficient freedom in choosing a design, reinforcing the conclusion that if the two designs do not have significant differences, they would produce the same overall impression on a consumer.

 

The Court examined the designs of the plaintiff and defendant side by side.  It found that there was no difference between the designs, and that the defendant’s design was an obvious adaptation of the design of the plaintiff.

 

The Court therefore found that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s industrial design in respect of the gumboots.  Specifically, the Court found that the defendant had adopted the registered design of the plaintiff and applied it to its own products with a view to cash in on the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiff and its products, amounting to confusion and passing off.

 

The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, employees, agents or assignees from reproducing the plaintiff’s registered industrial design in the manufacture, importing, offering for sale and selling of gumboots, as well as from stocking gumboots of that design for the purposes of offering them for sale or selling them.

 

The Court also awarded a sum of Ush 5,500,000,000 as general damages and special damages of Ush 6,589,795,284, as well as interest.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to emerging issues in industrial designs:

 

1.    Industrial design, as a category of intellectual property law, refers only to the aesthetic nature of a finished product, and is distinct from any technical or functional aspects.  That is, it is intended to protect features of an industrial article that are aesthetic and are not merely functional aspects of the design.

2.    The design must not, to the proprietor’s knowledge, have been in use by a person other than the applicant at the time that the design was adopted by the applicant.  Where two or more persons have made the same industrial design independently of each other, the person whose application has the earliest filing date or, if priority is claimed, the earliest validly claimed priority date that leads to the registration of an industrial design, has the right to register the industrial design.

3.    Infringement of an industrial design occurs when someone applies a registered industrial design or a design not differing substantially from the registered design, to an article for the purposes of sale, rental, or exposure for sale, without the permission of the owner.

 

Relevant legislation:

The Industrial Property Act, 2014 (Act No. 3 of 2014)