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



CPC International Inc. v Zainab Grain Millers Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1995, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam

CPC International Inc. v Zainab Grain Millers Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1995, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam

Mwaikasu, J.

Date of Judgment: August 30, 1994

Part of Civil Case No. 121 of 1993


This is an appeal from the High Court’s interlocutory order in Civil Case No. 121 of 1993. The appellant/plaintiff filed suit against the respondent/defendant, Zainab Grain Millers Ltd., for infringement of the appellant’s trade mark "MAZOLA." The mark was registered in Part A, Class 29 (Schedule III) under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Cap. 394, dating back to August 2, 1971, and was last renewed on August 2, 1992. The appellant used the mark "MAZOLA" to market and sell edible corn oil in Tanzania. The appellant alleged that the respondent used the mark to sell packets of corn derivatives, resulting in infringement and passing off, which caused damage and irreparable loss to the appellant’s reputation. The appellant sought injunctive relief and the delivery of all the respondent’s infringing materials to the appellant. The court denied the appellant’s request for a temporary injunction because the respondent’s goods bearing the mark differed from the Part A, Class 29 (Schedule III) category that the appellant’s mark was registered for and thus were not a colorable and deceptive imitation of the appellant’s trade mark. The appellant then filed this appeal.


(i) The purpose of a temporary (interlocutory) injunction is to maintain the status quo until the suit is finally determined on its merits. A court may not resolve issues due for trial at the interlocutory stage. The nature, class, and marketing of the goods are not relevant to the grant of a temporary injunction on the basis of passing off.

(ii) The applicable principles in granting a temporary injunction are (a) a showing of a prima facie case, (b) a probability of success, and (c) the applicant might suffer irreparable loss that would not be adequately compensated by monetary damages. As no evidence has been produced, it is improper to require the applicant to prove infringement of passing off at this stage.

(iii) A prima facie case could be established if the close similarity between the trade mark and the suit was such that it would deceive or confuse the consumer.


The appeal was awarded to the appellant/plaintiff, and the High Court’s original denial of the preliminary injunction was set aside. This court granted an order for a temporary injunction pending the final determination of the main suit.