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

TZ002-j

Back

Akita Electronic Co. L.L.C. v Mire Artan Ismail, Commercial Case No. 19 of 2006, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Akita Electronic Co. L.L.C. v Mire Artan Ismail, Commercial Case No. 19 of 2006, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Mjasiri, J.

Date of judgment: February 19, 2007

Facts

The plaintiff, Akita Electronic Co. LLC, registered in Dubai, UAE, was dealing in the whole sale, import, and export of electronic goods and home appliances, namely, TVs, VCRs, DVDs, and refrigerators. The company was trading under the registered trade mark "ZEC," which was registered in various countries, including Tanzania. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, a businessman residing in Dar es Salaam, for infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark by selling cheap imitations of electronic goods from China. The plaintiff requested a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade marks or service marks, an account of profits in respect of each and every infringement, and other relief.

Holdings

(i) Section 31 of the Trade and Service Marks Act Chapter 326 [R.E. 2002] gives the registered proprietor of a valid trade or service mark the exclusive right to use a trade or service mark in relation to any goods, including sale, importation, and an offer for sale or importation.

(ii) The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who must demonstrate how the defendant was infringing the plaintiff’s trade mark by producing samples and a description of the defendant’s product to enable the court to determine whether the defendant was selling products of a different model, type, and quality under the trade mark of the plaintiff.

Decision

It is undisputed that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the trade mark "ZEC" but no evidence demonstrated how the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s trade mark. No samples or descriptions of the defendant’s products were produced in court in order to determine whether the defendant was selling products of a different model, type, and quality under the trade mark "ZEC."