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

TZ036-j

Back

Tanzania Cigarette Co. Limited v Iringa Tobacco Co. Limited, Commercial Case No. 12 of 2005, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Tanzania Cigarette Co. Limited v Iringa Tobacco Co. Limited, Commercial Case No. 12 of 2005, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Kimaro, J

Date of Judgment: April 15, 2005

Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant are cigarette manufacturers. The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of several trade marks including, “Sportsman” and “Sweet Menthol” brands while the defendant trade marks were “Nyati Filters” and “Nyati Menthol”. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, claiming that the defendant’s two trade marks were closely similar and resembled the plaintiff’s trade marks.

The plaintiff requested an order to cancel and expunge the defendant's trade marks and a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using those trade marks. The plaintiff requested a warrant to seize all the defendant’s goods bearing those offending trade marks and deliver them to the plaintiff for destruction. The plaintiff also requested damages, costs, and any other relief to be granted by the court. Pending hearing of the suit, the plaintiff applied for an order for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing to use the offending trade marks.

Holding

A temporary injunction cannot be granted if there are questions that cannot be determined without touching on the merits of the case, such as issues of resemblance of the trade marks, loss of goodwill, confusion in the identification of the applicant's products, quality of the products, and expenses involved in publicizing the applicant's trade marks.

Decision

The nature of the case which had been filed by the plaintiff was not suitable for an order of temporary injunction.