Rwanda Case Law

MININTCO_V_DOBUSJES_461773_kn

Court

Commercial High Court

Case number

RCOMA00402/2017/CHC/HCC

The appellant, as the registered trademark owner, had standing to sue for infringement. However, the law does not require mandatory destruction of counterfeit goods; the trial court acted within its discretion by ordering removal from the Rwandan market rather than destruction. The appellant failed to prove actual damages suffered, so no damages were awarded. The request for publication of the judgment was denied as unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed as baseless, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs and attorney fees to the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Trademark infringement
• Counterfeit goods
• Damages
• Procedural law

Read case analysis

MININTCO Ltd v. DOBUSJES Ltd

Court

Commercial High Court

Case number

RCOMA00402/2017/CHC/HCC

MININTCO Ltd, as the registered trademark owner, has standing to sue for infringement. The court is not obliged to order destruction of counterfeit goods and may exercise discretion; in this case, destruction was not ordered as the goods were not sold on the market and no bad faith was proven. Damages for loss were denied due to lack of proof. Procedural and counsel fees were awarded to DOBUSJES Ltd as the unsuccessful appellant. Publication of the judgment was not ordered as unnecessary.

Source excerpt

• Trademark infringement
• Counterfeit goods
• Damages
• Procedural costs

Read case analysis

MADIOS Ltd v BIC

Court

Commercial High Court

Case number

RCOMA 00319/09/2016/CHC/HCC

The Commercial High Court upheld a finding that MADIOS Ltd infringed BIC’s trademark by importing and selling BIC CRISTAL pens without authorization.

• Trademark infringement
• Counterfeit goods
• Damages
• Procedural law
• Trademark-infringement
• Counterfeit-goods

Read case analysis