Introduction
Trademark agents are persons qualified and knowledgeable in trademark law and practice who assist business proprietors with the registration, management and protection of trademarks. An agent may file an application for trademark registration, institute opposition proceedings against the registration of confusingly similar or identical marks, and undertake other procedures necessary for the protection of trademark rights.
While in some jurisdictions a trademark agent may be any person duly qualified or certified by the relevant Intellectual Property Office, in Uganda, a trademark agent must be an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda and duly registered with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB). The agent is required to renew his or her registration annually in order to undertake trademark agency work.
The recent decision in Campbell’s Company v Peter Njawuzi brought to the fore an equally important requirement. A trademark agent must not only be qualified to act, but must also have proper authority from the person on whose behalf he or she purports to act.
Campbell’s Company Vs. Peter Njawuzi
Peter Njawuzi filed an application with the Registrar of Trademarks at URSB seeking registration of the trademark “V8 LUBOGO” in Class 32 in respect of beers. The application was published in the Uganda Gazette on 16 August 2024.
On 2 December 2024, Campbell’s Company, a company incorporated in the United States of America, filed an opposition against the registration of the trademark “V8 LUBOGO”. However, the opposition was filed without the accompanying Power of Attorney as proof of the agent’s authority to act for the company. The absence of the Power of Attorney was subsequently raised as a preliminary objection before the Registrar.
The Opponent later sought to place a Power of Attorney on record after the opposition proceedings had already been commenced.
In a ruling delivered on 14 September 2026, the Registrar dismissed the opposition on the ground that, at the time the notice of opposition was filed, the agent lacked the requisite authorisation prescribed under section 93 of the Trademarks Act, 2010 and regulation 10(2) of the Trademarks Regulations, 2023.
The decision therefore underscores the importance of establishing an agent’s authority at the commencement of trademark proceedings.
Requirement to File a Power of Attorney
Trademark law recognises the importance of agency, particularly where a proprietor is based outside the country in which protection is sought. Foreign trademark proprietors commonly act through locally qualified agents who represent them before national intellectual property offices.
Uganda’s trademark framework expressly regulates this relationship. Where an agent acts on behalf of a trademark proprietor, the prescribed authorisation or Power of Attorney serves as evidence that the agent has authority to undertake the relevant proceedings on behalf of the principal. URSB requires a foreign applicant acting through an agent to provide a Form of Authorisation (Form TM1) or Power of Attorney.
Therefore, a Power of Attorney is not a mere administrative requirement. It establishes the legal foundation upon which the agent seeks to invoke, for and on behalf of another person, in relation to the exercise of any powers and the enforcement of rights under trademarks laws in Uganda.
Trademark Agency and the Risk of “Ambulance Chasing”
Trademark agents routinely monitor the Uganda Gazette and trademark journals to identify applications that may conflict with registered or well-known marks. Such monitoring is an important aspect of trademark portfolio management because opposition proceedings are subject to statutory timelines.
A difficulty may, however, arise where an agent identifies a potentially conflicting application and, in an effort to preserve the opposition deadline, institutes proceedings before obtaining formal instructions from the trademark proprietor. The agent may thereafter seek instructions or authorisation from the proprietor.
While proactive trademark monitoring is legitimate professional practice, commencing proceedings without instructions is problematic. An Advocate must distinguish between alerting a prospective or existing client to a potentially conflicting trademark and purporting to institute legal proceedings on that person’s behalf without authority.
The latter practice may raise professional and ethical concerns under The Advocates Act. It may also expose the proceedings themselves to challenge for want of authority. The decision in Campbell’s Company v Peter Njawuzi therefore serves as a reminder that urgency created by an opposition deadline does not dispense with the requirement for proper instructions and authority to act.
The Flexibility Rule
Although the Registrar’s ruling was reasoned and supported by judicial authority, the decision also raises a broader question concerning the treatment of procedural irregularities before quasi-judicial bodies.
When determining trademark disputes, the Registrar exercises quasi-judicial functions. Such proceedings should undoubtedly comply with statutory requirements. At the same time, administrative and quasi-judicial decision making generally recognises the importance of resolving disputes on their substantive merits where procedural defects can lawfully be cured without causing injustice to the other party.
Where an agent subsequently produces evidence confirming that the trademark proprietor authorised the proceedings, should the absence or late filing of that evidence necessarily defeat an otherwise substantive opposition?
The answer must ultimately depend on the language and effect of the applicable statutory provisions. Procedural flexibility cannot be invoked to dispense with a mandatory statutory requirement or to retrospectively create authority that did not exist when proceedings were commenced. There is, however, an important distinction between an agent who had actual authority at the time of filing but failed to provide the prescribed evidence of that authority, and an agent who commenced proceedings without instructions and only subsequently obtained authority.
That distinction deserves careful consideration because trademark opposition proceedings serve not only the interests of the parties but also the integrity of the Trademark Register. Nevertheless, maintaining the integrity of the Register must operate alongside compliance with the statutory framework governing access to the Registrar’s processes.
Lessons for Trademark Agents
The Registrar’s ruling offers several practical lessons for trademark agents and trademark proprietors.
- First, where the law requires a trademark proprietor to act through a registered agent, the proprietor should ensure that the appointed person is duly qualified and currently registered to practise as a trademark agent in Uganda.
- Second, trademark agents should obtain clear instructions and the requisite authority before commencing opposition or other contentious trademark proceedings. Monitoring the Gazette may alert an agent or proprietor to a potential conflict, but identifying that conflict is different from having authority to institute proceedings.
- Third, agents should conduct a pre-filing review to ensure that all statutory documents and formalities, including the applicable Power of Attorney or Form of Authorisation, have been prepared and filed within the prescribed timelines.
- Finally, foreign trademark proprietors should establish internal mechanisms that allow them to give instructions promptly when potentially conflicting marks are advertised. Given the relatively short opposition period, delays in communication between foreign proprietors and Ugandan agents can have significant consequences.
Conclusion
Campbell’s Company v Peter Njawuzi demonstrates that authority to act is not a peripheral issue in trademark practice. A trademark agent’s professional qualification gives the agent capacity to practise, but it does not by itself confer authority to act for a particular proprietor. That authority must come from the principal and, where required by law, must be evidenced in the prescribed manner.
The decision also raises a legitimate question about the boundary between procedural compliance and substantive justice in trademark proceedings. While procedural flexibility may enable quasi-judicial bodies to determine disputes on their merits, it cannot necessarily cure the absence of authority to institute proceedings in the first place.
For trademark agents, the practical lesson is to monitor diligently, advise promptly, obtain instructions early and ensure that authority to act is properly documented before proceedings are commenced. For trademark proprietors, particularly those operating across borders, effective trademark protection requires not only registration of the mark but also timely and properly authorised action when that protection is threatened.
Joseph Okia
Advocate and Trademark Agent
BKA Advocates