Introduction

Trademarks are crucial assets in commercial transactions, particularly in competitive industries such as the confectionery market. They distinguish goods in the eyes of consumers and safeguard brand reputation. However, a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Lakairo Industries Group Co. Ltd & Others v. Kenafrica Industries Ltd & Others, Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2022 (26 September 2025), reaffirms that trademark rights are inherently territorial. This judgment is a landmark ruling on cross-border intellectual property disputes and the enforceability of foreign registered trademarks in Tanzania.

Background of the Case

Kenafrica Industries Limited, a Kenyan company, claimed ownership of the trademarks “Pipi Kifua,” “Special Veve,” and “Orange Drops”. The company accused Lakairo Industries (a Tanzanian entity) of infringing its marks by producing and distributing similar sweets and bubble gums in Tanzania under confusingly similar names such as “Lakairo Pipi Kifua” and “Lakairo Super Veve.”
Kenafrica sought, inter alia, an injunction against Lakairo, expungement of its marks from the Tanzanian Register of Trade and Service Marks, special damages amounting to TZS 3.97 billion, and destruction of infringing products.
The High Court (Commercial Division) decided in Kenafrica’s favour, prompting an appeal.

Issues on Appeal

The Court of Appeal distilled the matter into two central issues:

Whether Lakairo’s trademarks infringed Kenafrica’s marks.

Whether Kenafrica suffered any damage.

The Court’s Analysis

i. Territoriality of Trademarks
The Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle that trademark protection is territorial. Under the Trade and Service Marks Act, Cap. 326 exclusive rights arise only upon local registration in Tanzania.
Kenafrica’s trademarks were registered in Kenya, Zimbabwe through the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) under the Banjul Protocol. Tanzania, however, had not ratified the corresponding Banjul Protocol. As such, Kenafrica lacked enforceable rights within Tanzania.
The Court underscored that foreign registrations, no matter how senior, confer no protection unless domestically registered.

ii. Damages rewarded
The Court struck down the High Court’s award of TZS 3.97 billion in special damages for lack of strict proof, and TZS 200 million in general damages for being unjustified. The court stressed the principle that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.

iii. Expungement of Trademarks
Although the relief of expungement was pleaded, the Court held that it was improperly granted since Kenafrica had no local rights to enforce. The appellants’ (Lakairo)Tanzanian registrations were valid and could not be invalidated on the basis of foreign or ARIPO rights.

Court decision

The Court held that without local registration, there are no enforceable rights in Tanzania. Foreign or regional registrations alone are not enough.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in its entirety, set aside the High Court judgment, and ordered costs in favour of Lakairo.

Implications of the Judgment

Confirmation of the Territoriality Principle
Businesses must ensure that trademarks are registered in every jurisdiction where protection is sought. Foreign or regional registrations are insufficient unless domestically recognized.

Impact on Cross-Border Trade
The ruling underscores the vulnerability of foreign companies operating in Tanzania without local registration. Even well-known marks abroad may not be protected unless registered locally.

Conclusion

The Lakairo v. Kenafrica decision is an essential precedent in Tanzanian trademark jurisprudence has it emphasize that the intellectual property rights stop at the border unless domestically registered. For foreign companies eyeing the Tanzanian market, proactive local registration is not optional but a necessity.

Contact Us