[2009] KEHC 1258 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute involved contested issues of fact regarding trademark infringement and passing off, which required a full trial for proper determination. Granting the interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff would effectively dispose of the substantive suit without hearing evidence from both...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1258 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Bus Service Management Ltd.; Defendant: BTC Electric Fence Building & Alarm Systems; Defendant: Family Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 370 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Interlocutory Injunctions, Franchise Termination
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenya Bus Service Management Ltd.
Plaintiff
BTC Electric Fence Building & Alarm Systems
Defendant
Family Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiff's registered service marks numbers 59664 and 59665 in classes 39 and 42.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks pending trial.
- 3 Whether granting the injunction would effectively determine the suit without a full trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute involved contested issues of fact regarding trademark infringement and passing off, which required a full trial for proper determination. Granting the interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff would effectively dispose of the substantive suit without hearing evidence from both parties. The court therefore declined to grant the injunction, emphasizing that such orders should not be made where they would preempt the trial and final adjudication of the parties' rights.
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs in the cause.
Orders
- Prayer for interlocutory injunction under prayer 2 is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION
Civil Case 370 of 2008
KENYA BUS SERVICE MANAGEMENT LTD. ……..….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BTCELECTRIC FENCE BUILDING&
ALARM SYSTEMS
FAMILY BANK LIMITED …………………………….. DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
Chamber Summons dated and filed on 3/7/08 is brought under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 and 3, Civil Procedure Codeand Section 3A of Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya. Application seeks orders the first and third of which have been dealt with. The outstanding application is numbered 2 in respect of an injunction to restrain the defendants’ servants and agents and employees in any way from infringing on and passing off the plaintiff’s service mark numbers 59664 and 59665 in classes 39 and 42 pending full hearing of this suit.
The grounds upon which the application is based are stated in the application which is supported by affidavit of Edwins M. Mukabanah which exhibits certificate of registration of TRADE MARK under Rule 63 numbers 59664, 59665. The plaintiff has been carrying on transport business and has acquired goodwill. The plaintiff noticed the motor vehicle registered in the names of the defendants registration number KAX 040 U Isuzu bus was bearing confusing and deceptively similar get up, shape and colours, configuration design and appearance as the plaintiff’s registered marks (Orders have already been made for the removal of those marks). The plaintiff has not authorized the defendants to carry on business using the trade mark.
In replying affidavit sworn by Florence Muthoni, the second defendant states it is a financial institution which financed the first defendant to purchase the vehicle. The bank has not part in the day to day management of the first defendants’ transport business or the above mentioned bus. The first defendant has caused an affidavit to be sworn by John Maina Ndonga described as Managing Director. He admits that the plaintiff and first defendant had an agreement of franchise which has been terminated. He has exhibited a photograph of the bus for the court to see. He denies that the colours of the motor vehicle are confusing members of the public.
I have considered the evidence contained in the affidavit. I notice the parties were having an agreement prior to this dispute and matters as to the infringement of trademark are denied. This is a matter that calls for a trial before final orders can be made. I do not find that an interlocutory injunction can be made in respect of the application made under prayer 2 of the application. Such an order would bring the suit to an end without hearing evidence of the parties at trial.
I therefore do not grant orders sought and I dismiss that prayer with costs in the cause.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at Nairobi this 3rd day of November, 2009.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE