The ratio decidendi of Lady Justice Murugi Mugo’s decision can be found on the second last page of the judgement:
“…it is clear that the words “MOLOLINE” and “MOLINE” as appearing in the Applicant’s minibuses KBB 882 M and respondents KBM 807 C and KBK 425B highly resemble in material particulars. (…) the said words and marks, their usage in the same locality and in the same industry, providing the same service, namely, public commuter services, do have a high likelihood causing confusion among the members of the public, with a high probability of making them confuse the 1st Respondent’s minibuses with those of the Applicant, be deceived or made to believe that “MOLINE” buses belong to or are associated with “MOLOLINE SERVICES LTD”, all to the detriment of the Respondent and its business.
By the registration of its trademark, the Applicant acquired a prima facie right of claim against any potential culprit in the infringement thereof. Given the nature of the business involved, as demonstrated by the 1st Respondent’s evidence as to earnings, I am in no doubt that the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss not capable of compensation in damages.”
Read the full judgement here.