Court confirms sh20 million fine for company that imported counterfeit toner

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDPENDENT | Court has dismissed an appeal and allowed for the payment of 20 million shillings in damages and the destruction of counterfeit toner cartridges belonging to China New Future (Uganda) Ltd.

Sitting in Kampala, three Court of Appeal Justices agreed with the ruling of the High Court that found China New Future (Uganda) Ltd was guilty of counterfeiting the toner cartridges of Hewlett Packard-HP. The High Court presided over by Judge Geoffrey Namundi ruled that there was an infringement of HP’s trademark and passing off when China New Future imported toner which bore the symbols of HP.

The judge issued a permanent injunction restraining China New Future from using the mark HP or Hewlett-Packard on any of its cartridges or products. The judge also issued an order for the seizure and destruction of all the counterfeit HP products and other material in their possession relating to the HP trademarks.

The judge also allowed damages of 20 million out of the 100million that had been demanded by HP in general damages. The judge’s orders were made in January 2014.

Dissatisfied, China New Future appealed the decision on two grounds that the Judge erred in law and fact when he ruled that their goods were counterfeit when the same had not been proved and that the Judge erred in law and fact and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he awarded 2O million Shillings as general damages when no damages had been proved.

“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. What interest would the Respondent have to tamper with counterfeit goods, especially those infringing on their registered trademark?… I thus find that the Appellant’s goods were counterfeit and were an infringement on the Respondent’s trademark. In conclusion, I find no merit in ground 1 of the appeal. It accordingly fails,” the ruling reads in part.

The justice also ruled in the negative on the grounds of protesting the damages. She said HP had proved that the Appellant had infringed on its trademark and, as a result, would suffer loss, which necessitated the damages. “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 reads in part.

Other Justices on the panel were Eva Luswata and Jessy Byaruhanga  Rugyema.

***

URN