关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

坦桑尼亚联合共和国

TZ028-j

返回

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.