[2008] KEHC 3795 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 3795 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent was duly served with the injunction order and decree restraining him from infringing the applicants' trademark number 57835. Despite this, the respondent continued to use the trademark, as evidenced by a letter dated 2nd September, 2008. The court was satisfied that this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 3795 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Chloride Exide (K) Limited; Applicant: Associated Battery Manufacturers Ltd; Respondent: Zakayo Muchai Wainaina t/a Chloride Exide Solar
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 443 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application allowed. Respondent found in contempt and committed to prison for two months. Costs to the applicants.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Trademark Infringement, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Intellectual Property Contempt of Court Trademark Infringement Injunctive Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chloride Exide (K) Limited

Applicant

Associated Battery Manufacturers Ltd

Applicant

Zakayo Muchai Wainaina t/a Chloride Exide Solar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of court for disobeying and breaching the injunction orders granted on 13th June, 2008.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent infringed the applicants' trademark number 57835 after service of the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to committal orders and enforcement of the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was duly served with the injunction order and decree restraining him from infringing the applicants' trademark number 57835. Despite this, the respondent continued to use the trademark, as evidenced by a letter dated 2nd September, 2008. The court was satisfied that this constituted a clear violation of the court's order and amounted to contempt. The contempt was ongoing, and the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the committal of the respondent. The court therefore granted the order for the respondent's arrest and committal to prison for two months for contempt of court.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Respondent found in contempt and committed to prison for two months. Costs to the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent is committed to prison for a period of two months for contempt of court.
  • The officer commanding Maua Police Station to enforce the injunction orders granted on 13th June, 2008.