About Intellectual Property IP Training 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 The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness 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 Enforcement 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 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 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 ALERT 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



Godrej Consumer Products Limited v Targent International (T) Limited, Miscellaneous Commercial Application No. 54 of 2019, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

GodreJ. Consumer Products Limited v Targent International (T) Limited, Miscellaneous Commercial Application No. 54 of 2019, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam

Fikirini, J.

Date of Ruling: July 2, 2020


The plaintiff sued the defendant for importing counterfeited goods into the Tanzanian market (Commercial Case No. 60 of 2019). Pending that case, the plaintiff filed an application under certificate of urgency for a temporary injunction against the defendant to restrain them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing insect repellent bearing the HIT Trade Mark. The Defendant further contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi to sue because it was neither the registered owner of the word HIT as a trade mark in Tanzania nor had any legally recognizable right which had been infringed upon by the defendant.


(i) In an application under certificate of urgency, the applicant must show three things: (a) that there was a prima facie case with probability that the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed; (b) the injunction was necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm; (c) that the grant of the injunction would cause the respondent less hardship than withholding the injunction would case the applicant.

(ii) The prima face case of trade mark infringement may be established if upon consideration of the close similarity between the trade marks at issue was, on balance, such as to cause deception or confusion to the customers. This can be met by a showing that the applicant’s products bearing the mark were imported prior to the respondent’s importation of identical products bearing the mark.

(iii) The irreparable harm is prong is met because the goodwill established, confusion, and deception due to the close similarity of the products will harm the applicant financially and reputationally. Reputational harm may not be reversed through money damages.

(iv) If the first two prongs are met, the applicant will likely suffer more than the respondent.


(i) The plaintiff established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement and the harm to its reputation would be irreparable but for the preliminary injunction. The application for temporary injunction is granted.