The recent High Court judgment in Afroludo Ltd v URSB & Eric Nyakueizabo has sparked significant discussion in Uganda’s intellectual property and business law circles. At the center of the dispute was the trademark application for "Nyege Nyege International Music Festival," which the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) rejected on morality grounds, while simultaneously registering the business name "Nyege Nyege Music Festival" for another applicant.
The court’s ruling not only clarified Uganda’s trademark registration principles but also set a precedent on fraudulent business name registrations and the exercise of administrative discretion.
Afroludo Ltd, the organizer of the internationally recognized Nyege Nyege Festival, sought to trademark the festival’s name. URSB rejected the application, arguing that the word "Nyege Nyege" connoted sexual immorality. However, one month later, URSB registered the business name "Nyege Nyege Music Festival" for Eric Nyakueizabo (2nd Defendant), who had never organized a festival under that name.
Feeling aggrieved, Afroludo Ltd filed a lawsuit against URSB and the 2nd Defendant, arguing that:
The court strongly criticized URSB’s decision to reject the Plaintiff’s trademark while allowing the 2nd Defendant’s business name. The judge emphasized:
“I find that the 1st defendant illegally, irrationally and unfairly rejected the plaintiff’s application for the trademark registration of the mark ‘Nyege Nyege International Music Festival.’”
One of the most problematic aspects of URSB’s decision was its reliance on a Google search interpretation rather than a linguistic and cultural assessment. The court pointed out:
“A simple application of the reasonable man test would show that the 1st defendant ought to have determined the morality of the Nyege mark based on the language widely spoken in the area where the festival is held rather than the imported Google search English-Kiswahili slang meaning.”
This ruling challenges subjective moral interpretations in trademark law and reinforces the need for culturally relevant assessments.
The 2nd Defendant registered "Nyege Nyege Music Festival" only after Afroludo Ltd’s trademark application was rejected. The court found that this was done intentionally to create confusion and mislead the public.
“The 2nd defendant illegally and fraudulently procured registration of the business name ‘Nyege Nyege Music Festival’ to mislead and cause confusion with the plaintiff’s business styled as ‘Nyege Nyege International Music Festival.’”
The court further noted that:
“The Defendants, like any other Ugandan, were all aware of the Nyege Nyege Festivals that were organized by the Plaintiff.”
This was clear evidence that the 2nd Defendant’s registration was not innocent, but rather an opportunistic move to exploit the Plaintiff’s brand.
A key weakness in URSB’s argument was its double standard—rejecting the trademark for being immoral while permitting the same name as a business name. The judge found this reasoning defective and contradictory:
“The 1st Defendant justified registering the 2nd Defendant’s name ‘Nyege Nyege Music Festival’ as it connotes a music festival while the Plaintiff’s mark ‘Nyege Nyege’ connotes sexual immorality. This defies logic.”
Furthermore, the court noted that URSB was well aware of the Plaintiff’s existing festival brand but still allowed the 2nd Defendant’s registration. This led the court to conclude that:
“The 1st Defendant’s agents, having had knowledge of the rejection of the Plaintiff’s trademark, acted in concert with the 2nd Defendant to register the same mark as a business name to defeat the Plaintiff’s claim.”
The court ruled in favor of Afroludo Ltd, issuing the following orders:
“The power to register a trademark is discretionary and must be exercised fairly. It should not be at the whims or swing moods of the decision maker.”
This statement underscores that public authorities must apply discretion reasonably and consistently.
While the ruling exposed administrative inconsistencies, it did not impose reforms on URSB to prevent future cases of double standards in business name and trademark registration. The court could have ordered guideline revisions for URSB’s procedures.
Despite ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, the court did not award costs, even though Afroludo Ltd had been forced into litigation due to unfair treatment. The court simply stated:
“Due to the peculiar nature of this case, each party should meet their costs.”
It can be argued that this undermines accountability, as URSB and the 2nd Defendant faced no financial consequences for their actions.
This ruling sets a precedent against fraudulent business name registrations. It affirms that:
The Nyege Nyege case is a victory for trademark holders and fair business practices. The court’s criticism of URSB’s administrative conduct and its acknowledgment of fraudulent registrations mark an important step toward greater intellectual property protections in Uganda.
However, the ruling could have been stronger in addressing systemic administrative issues and awarding costs to the rightful party.
For businesses, this case reinforces the importance of registering trademarks early to avoid legal disputes. For policymakers, it highlights the need for stricter oversight on business name registrations to prevent exploitation of established brands.
The judgment serves as a warning to public institutions to apply discretion fairly and a precedent against fraudulent business name registrations. Moving forward, it is crucial that URSB improves its registration processes to avoid similar disputes in the future.
On the other hand, I want to give URSB the benefit of the doubt that this error could have resulted from the disjointedness between the different registries from an operational point of view. There is a need to harmonise and cross-verify that business name registration and trademark registrations don't end up in contradicting positions. I believe that this is what could have occasioned the mishap.