Trademark Infringement
Bata Brands SA & another v Umoja Rubber Products Limited [2021] KECA 599 (KLR) (Civil Application NAI 378 of 2018)
Facts
Bata alleged Umoja's "Shupavu" school shoes copied the shape, design and appearance of Bata's iconic "Toughees" shoes. The High Court had earlier dismissed Bata's injunction application, finding damages an adequate remedy and citing over four years' delay by Bata in acting.
Issues
Whether an injunction should issue pending Bata's intended appeal — specifically whether the intended appeal was arguable and would be rendered nugatory without interim relief.
Rule
Appellate Jurisdiction Act ss.3A and 3D; Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 5(2)(b); Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter [2013] eKLR (arguability standard); Trust Bank Ltd v Investech Bank Ltd (nugatory test).
Analysis
The court found Bata's grounds arguable but held the "nugatory" limb unmet, since both brands had coexisted in the market with no documented, irreparable harm — damages would adequately compensate any loss.
Conclusion
Application for injunction pending appeal dismissed with costs; the underlying High Court dismissal of Bata's passing-off claim over "Toughees" stood.
Ruling available at kenyalaw.org.