EDMUND AKOTO-BAMFO vs. KWAMENA MIREKU [2005]DLHC7439

Date	2005-10-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 162/2005
Citation No.	[2005]DLHC7439

HIS LORDSHIP YAW APPAU J.

[2005]DLHC7439
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >EDMUND AKOTO-BAMFO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAMENA MIREKU<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. AC 162/2005&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 21ST OCTOBER 2005<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HIS LORDSHIP YAW APPAU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>The
plaintiff is seeking four reliefs from this court as endorsed on his amended
writ of summons filed on 3/2/2005. These are: <o:p></o:p>(a) Perpetual Injunction to restrain the defendant by
himself or his servants or agents from infringing the plaintiff's trademark No.
29,868 registered in Ghana on February 18, 1999 and for wrongfully selling and
passing off the plaintiff's goods thereunder. <o:p></o:p>(b) ¢200,000,000.00 Special Damages <o:p></o:p>(c) General Damages or in the alternative account of
profits and payment of the amount shown to be due to the plaintiff on the
taking of such account. <o:p></o:p>(d) Delivery up to the plaintiff of all infringing goods,
material or articles in the possession, custody or control of the defendant for
the disposal thereof by distruction or forfeiture to such persons as the court
may think fit. <o:p></o:p>The
pleaded case of the plaintiff was that he is the original owner and registered
proprietor of the trademark 'THE WHITE CAT' which he registered at the
Trademark Registry on February 18, 1999 under serial number 29,868 in class 14
in respect of Safety Matches and all the goods in the class. The defendant,
without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent, infringed the said trademark by
importing into the country Safety Matches for public consumption bearing
plaintiff's trademark but which are of inferior quality and passing off same as
plaintiff's safety matches. <o:p></o:p>He
contended further that the defendant is selling these goods and misleading the
public into believing that the inferior safety matches are plaintiff's safety
matches thereby causing injury to both the public and the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>This
conduct of the defendant, according to plaintiff, has caused him and will
continue to cause him great loss of reputation and consequent damage thus this
action. The defendant, apart from admitting that he sells safety matches with
the brand name 'The White Cat', denied all the averments contained in
plaintiff's statement of claim. In effect, he denied importing into the country
safety matches bearing the brand name 'The White Cat' with the device of the
White Cat and again denied plaintiff's ownership of the said trademark. <o:p></o:p>According
to him Beatex Enterprise not being a person at law could not own a trademark.
He therefore counter-claimed for: <o:p></o:p>a) An order for the invalidation of the mark 'The White
Cat' and the device 'CAT' in the name of Beatex Enterprise in class 34 in
respect of Safety Matches and all goods in the class of the registry of
trademarks in the name Beatex Enterprise. <o:p></o:p>b) An order for the cancellation of Trademark Certificate
No. 29,868 in the name of Beatex Enterprise in respect of 'THE WHITE CAT' and
the device 'CAT' <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
later amended the amount being claimed under Special Damages from
¢200,000,000.00 to read ¢211,310,000.00 <o:p></o:p>At
the close of pleadings four issues were agreed on and adopted for determination
by this court. The plaintiff filed the first two while the defendant filed the
remaining two. These are:— <o:p></o:p>1. Whether or not the defendant has infringed on and/or
passed off the plaintiff's trademark by importing and selling matches bearing
the name 'The White Cat'. <o:p></o:p>2. Whether or not Trademark No. 29,868 is valid and enforceable.
<o:p></o:p>3. Whether or not the plaintiff is the registered owner
of the trademark 'THE WHITE CAT'. <o:p></o:p>4. Whether or not Beatex Enterprise not being a person at
law can own the trademark 'THE WHITE CAT.' <o:p></o:p>After
the adoption of these issues for determination, counsel for the defendant
prayed the court to set down issue '4' (i.e. Whether or not Beatex Enterprise
not being a person at law could own the trademark 'THE WHITE CAT'), for legal
arguments. He did this on the assumption that Beatex Enterprise had been
registered under the Business Names Act, 151 and that it was in fact, Edward
Akoto-Bamfo (the plaintiff herein) who registered that business name. <o:p></o:p>Even
before the decision to set down issue '4' for legal arguments was taken, the
defendant had earlier on not opposed an applica</main>