About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

United Republic of Tanzania

TZ011-j

Back

Godrej Consumer Products Limited v Target International (T) Limited, Commercial Case No. 60 of 2019, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v Target International (T) Ltd., Commercial Case 60 of 2019, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Fikirini, J.

Date of Judgment: April 27, 2021

Facts

This is a ruling on two preliminary objections raised by the defendant. The first question is whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. The second question is whether the plaintiff has legal standing to sue. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s claim was primarily about the alleged importation of counterfeit marks and/or offending goods, which fell under the original jurisdiction of the Chief Inspector as per Part IV of the Merchandise Mark Regulations, Cap. 85, 2018 R.E. 2002. The plaintiff argued that the dispute was of commercial significance based on the Trade and Service Mark Act, not the Merchandise Mark Regulations. On the second objection, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was not the owner of the trade mark at dispute. This was a question of fact, not of law.

Holdings

(i) Under Rule 3 of the Commercial Court Rules, a civil case involving a matter of commercial significance includes any claim arising out of a transaction of trade or commerce. While the Merchandise Mark Act and Regulation is subject-specific legislation, its remedies are limited to purely criminal in nature. The Trade and Service Mark Act covers civil remedies that the plaintiff seeks. Furthermore, the Merchandise Mark Regulations show that submission to the Chief Inspector’s jurisdiction is not mandatory.

(ii) Preliminary objections are not valid to dispute issues of fact. Since it requires the adducing of evidence to prove whether the plaintiff was not the registered owner of the "HIT" trade mark, a preliminary objection is not the correct stage to prove that the plaintiff is without standing.

Decision

The court has jurisdiction over this commercial case. Both objections were overruled and dismissed with costs.