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

TZ006-j

Back

Distribution Africa Limited v Registrar of Trade and Service Marks, Miscellaneous Commercial Cause No. 26 of 2005, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Distribution Africa Limited v Registrar of Trade and Service Marks, Miscellaneous Commercial Cause No. 26 of 2005, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Bwana, J.

Date of Judgment: June 9, 2006

Facts

On December 11, 2003, the appellant filed an application for the CHIN CHIN mark, a tomato paste product, under class 29. The application was accepted and published in the Trade and Service Marks Journal on January 15, 2004. Three months later, the Registrar of Trade and Service Marks learned that another Trade mark No QTM 000772 under class 30, dated July 21, 2003, in the name of CHIN CHEN had been accepted and advertised by the Registrar.

On June 14, 2004, the appellant received a letter from the Registrar informing him of the withdrawal of acceptance of its application. The appellant objecting to the Registrar’s decision requested a hearing under section 60 of the Trade and Service Marks Act, Cap. 326 R.E. 2002 and Regulation 28 of Trade and Service Marks Regulations, 2000. The hearing was conducted and on June 21, 2005, the Registrar delivered its ruling declining to review her earlier decision to refuse registration of the appellant’s mark. The appellant was aggrieved by the decision and appealed to the High Court.

Holdings

(i) Where the question of distinctiveness arises between two trade or service marks, the Registrar of Trade and Service Marks must stop the registration process and clear the issue, or else any registration so carried out will be invalid.

(ii) Where there are similarities between trade marks, the Registrar of Trade and Service Marks cannot impose special conditions or conclude that the marks are not similar.

(iii) Final stage of registration is not equal to registration for purpose of ascertaining usage of a mark.

Decision

(i) The Registrar was correct in finding that the appellant did not have priority over the other applicant because by the time the appellant filed his application, the other applicant had already filed its application and it had already been advertised;

(ii) The Registrar was correct in declining a plea of prior use in the same geographical area because the appellant failed to establish prior use in the same geographical area.