KAMPALA — The High Court Commercial Division has awarded Migoo Industrial and Trading Company (U) Limited more than Shs16.7 billion in damages after finding that Rida International Industry (U) Limited deliberately copied the appearance of Migoo’s gumboots and passed off its products in a manner that confused consumers.
Justice Stephen Mubiru, in a judgment delivered on October 7, 2026, awarded Migoo Shs12.768 billion in special damages and another Shs4 billion in general damages, bringing the total award to Shs16.768 billion, excluding interest and costs.
The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining Rida, its employees, agents and other persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, importing, offering for sale, stocking or distributing gumboots in a manner that creates confusion with Migoo’s products or misrepresents Rida’s goods as those of Migoo.
The dispute arose from the manufacture and sale of gumboots by the two companies. Migoo told court that it had been producing and selling gumboots under the Migoo trademark since 2012 after engaging Li Dong Biao to design a mould for its products.
According to the company, Li later incorporated Rida International Industry in Uganda and began manufacturing gumboots for the same market. Migoo accused Rida of producing gumboots with an almost identical shape, colour, sizes and ornamental features, thereby undercutting its sales and confusing customers.
The dispute escalated in May 2019 when Migoo reported alleged infringement to the authorities. Police obtained a search warrant and searched Rida’s factory in Luzira, Kampala, on May 13, 2019, seizing moulds, gumboots and documents.
A magistrate’s court later revoked the seizure order and directed that the property be returned to Rida.
Rida denied infringement and argued that its design was different from Migoo’s. It also pointed out that its industrial design had been registered on August 28, 2018, several months before Migoo’s registration on February 18, 2019.
The company further argued that the design was not new because similar gumboots had been manufactured in Uganda by Bata Shoe Company Uganda Limited and Rocky Industries Limited decades earlier.
Justice Mubiru agreed that the basic shape of a gumboot cannot be monopolised because features such as the shaft, collar, vamp, counter and instep are dictated largely by the product’s function.
However, the judge distinguished those functional features from the ornamental grooves and contours appearing on the boots.
The court found that Rida’s gumboots produced essentially the same overall impression as Migoo’s when viewed by an informed consumer. The differences between the two products were considered too insignificant to give Rida’s design an independent character.
The court also relied on evidence from Migoo distributor Aida Ndagire, who testified that some customers picked Rida gumboots believing they were Migoo products and only realised the difference after noticing the branding or quality.
The judge found that Rida had deliberately removed a distinguishing feature from its product, making it visually similar to Migoo’s gumboots and resulting in actual customer confusion.
The court held that Rida’s conduct went beyond merely using a common gumboot design and amounted to calculated misrepresentation aimed at Migoo’s goodwill and customer base.
The court further found that the confusion caused financial harm to Migoo. Evidence before court showed that the company lost customers and was forced to reduce the price of its gumboots from Shs10,000 to as low as Shs7,000 per pair in response to competition from Rida.
The judge also rejected Rida’s counterclaim for malicious prosecution and conversion arising from the 2019 police search and seizure.
The court found that Migoo had reported the alleged infringement but did not itself obtain or execute the search warrant. The seizure was conducted by police under a court order, while the failure to return the seized property after the order was revoked was attributed to law enforcement rather than Migoo.
Consequently, Rida’s counterclaim was dismissed with costs.
In an unusual aspect of the judgment, the court cancelled both companies’ industrial design registrations. The court found that the disputed design had been in public use before the registrations and therefore could not meet the statutory requirement of novelty.
Despite cancelling Migoo’s registration, the court maintained that Migoo could succeed on its passing-off claim because passing off protects goodwill and prevents deliberate misrepresentation, rather than granting ownership of the underlying gumboot shape.
The court ordered that the Shs12.768 billion special damages award attracts interest at 15 percent per annum from May 3, 2019, when the suit was filed, until payment in full. The Shs4 billion general damages award attracts interest at six percent per annum from October 7, 2026, until payment in full. Rida was also ordered to pay the costs of the suit and counterclaim.
English 