Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Commercial Court found that Super Moviate Ltd’s “SUPER” mark imitated Mukwano Industries Ltd’s earlier “SUPA” mark and ordered it to stop sales, but denied damages for lack of proof.
The Commercial Court found Super Moviate Ltd’s ‘SUPER’ mark imitated Mukwano Industries Ltd’s earlier ‘SUPA’ mark, ordered removal from market, and denied damages for lack of proof.
Res judicata did not apply because the parties and subject matter were not identical to the previous case. The 'Wild Olive' trademark was found to be confusingly similar to the 'KANTA Brand' trademark based on dominant features, appearance, and expert testimony, constituting unfair competition. DRESOCECO LTD's importation and sale of such products in Rwanda was unlawful. The request for destruction of seized products was denied as the law only allows cessation of unfair competition, not destruction, unless damages are claimed and awarded.
Source excerpt
The appeal lacks merit because the 'Wild Olive' mark used by DRESOCECO Ltd creates a likelihood of confusion with 'KANTA Brand', constituting unfair competition under Rwandan law. Previous judgments do not bar the claim as parties and subject matter differ. DRESOCECO Ltd must cease importation and sale of 'Wild Olive' products in Rwanda.
Source excerpt
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
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
The Commercial High Court held that MADIOS Ltd’s importation and sale of BIC-branded pens without authorization constituted trademark forgery and upheld most relief.
The Commercial High Court upheld a finding that MADIOS Ltd infringed BIC’s trademark by importing and selling BIC CRISTAL pens without authorization.
Explore more
