This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2026 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 8: Cross-border Aspects of IP Disputes
Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania [2025]: Lakairo Industries Group Co. Limited & 2 others vs Kenafrica Industries Limited & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2022) [2025] TZCA 999
Date of judgment: September 26, 2025
Issuing authority: The Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)
Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff/Appellant: Lakairo Industries Group Co. Limited (1st Appellant); Lakairo Investment Co. Limited (2nd Appellant); Lameck Okambo Airo (3rd Appellant)
Defendant/Respondent: Kenafrica Industries Limited (1st Respondent); Registrar of Trade and Service Marks (2nd Respondent); Attorney General (3rd Respondent)
Keywords: Trademark infringement; Territoriality principle; Exclusive rights; Registered trademarks; African regional intellectual property organization (ARIPO); Banjul protocol
Basic Facts: Kenafrica Industries Limited (“Kenafrica”), a Kenyan confectionery manufacturer, brought an action in the Commercial Division of the High Court of Tanzania against Lakairo Industries Group Co. Ltd and Lakairo Investments Co. Ltd, both Tanzanian companies, seeking to be declared the rightful owner of the trademarks "Pipi Kifua", "Special Veve", and "Orange Drops".
The appellants were previously distributors of Kenafrica’s products in Tanzania and later began manufacturing and marketing goods bearing identical names and similar appearances, releasing them into the Tanzanian market as if manufactured by Kenafrica, but at lower prices, amounting to passing off. Kenafrica's contention was premised on two bases of trademark ownership: registration of its marks in Kenya, and registration in Zimbabwe through the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). In the High Court, the issues of trademark infringement and passing off were determined primarily on the basis of the likelihood of confusion between the parties’ goods. There, the appellants were ordered to cease and desist their use of Kenafrica’s trademark, withdraw from the market, destroy their products with those trademarks, and pay TZS 200 million as general damages and interest of 7% per annum from the date of judgment to the date of payment in full, together with costs. Registrar of Trade and Service Marks (2nd Respondent) was also ordered to expunge the trademarks “Special Veve” and “LAKAIRO Pipi Kifua” from the register.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising nine grounds against the trial Court’s verdict, which were summarized into Whether the Appellants' trademarks infringed those of Kenafrica and, subject to proof of infringement, whether Kenafrica had suffered any damage.
For the Appellants, it was argued that the Appellants and Kenafrica owned separately registered trademarks; that Kenafrica had not registered its trademarks in Tanzania but rather in Kenya and Zimbabwe under ARIPO, while the Appellants had registered its trademarks in Tanzania, thus negating any imitation or infringement. It was further argued that Kenafrica had failed to disprove the Appellants’ registration of their trademarks, and that the order to expunge the Appellants’ trademarks was baseless for want of proof.
For the Respondents, it was argued that the product confusion was caused by the general appearance, the names of the respective goods, and the packaging style, which the Appellants were alleged to have replicated. Again, they believed that Kenafrica’s trademarks took precedence over the Appellants' because they were registered earlier, albeit in Kenya and Zimbabwe under ARIPO. Finally, the Respondents submitted that the expungement of the Appellants’ trademarks was pleaded and argued, and that it was the only remedy available following the Appellants' trademark infringement.
Holding:
1. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal entirely with costs.
2. It held that Kenafrica’s trademarks registered abroad (Kenya, Zimbabwe/ARIPO) had no enforceability in Tanzania because Tanzania had not domesticated the Banjul Protocol on Marks.
3. Exclusive rights for the use of a trademark in Tanzania arise only through domestic registration under the Trade and Service Marks Act.
4. Therefore, Lakairo’s Tanzanian registrations could not be invalidated on the basis of foreign registrations.
5. Damages awarded by the High Court were set aside as misconceived.
Relevant Holdings in relation to cross-border aspects of IP disputes:
1. Jurisdiction and Applicable Law:
Tanzanian courts have jurisdiction to determine trademark infringement occurring in Tanzania and in doing so, domestic law takes precedence over international instruments unless they have been signed or ratified and domesticated.
2. Private International Law:
a. Lex loci protectionis (law of the country where protection is sought) and the territoriality principle guide the choice of applicable law, effectively reinforcing the position that, in the absence of special arrangements, trademarks are independent in each jurisdiction.
b. Domestication of international instruments is a prerequisite for their application as law in dualist states.
Relevant Legislation: Trade and Service Marks Act (TZ041); Banjul Protocol on Marks within the Framework of the ARIPO