China New Future Fined Shs 20 Million for Selling Counterfeit HP Toner

Updated by Faith Barbara N Ruhinda at 1607 EAT on Friday 8 August 2025

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by China New Future (Uganda) Ltd, upholding a High Court ruling from Jinja that ordered the company to pay Shs 20 million in damages and destroy counterfeit toner cartridges bearing the Hewlett-Packard (HP) trademark.

A panel of three justices — Stella Arach-Amoko, Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema, and Eva Luswata — upheld a 2014 High Court ruling that found China New Future (Uganda) Ltd guilty of trademark infringement and “passing off” by importing toner cartridges bearing Hewlett-Packard (HP) branding.

The judgment, originally delivered by Justice Geoffrey Namundi, ruled that the company had unlawfully used HP’s trademarks, misleading consumers into believing the products were genuine.

The High Court issued a permanent injunction barring China New Future from using HP or Hewlett-Packard trademarks on any of its products and ordered the seizure and destruction of all counterfeit HP toner cartridges and related materials in its possession.

Although Hewlett-Packard (HP) had sought Shs 100 million in general damages, the High Court awarded Shs 20 million — a decision China New Future appealed, arguing that the judge had erred in both fact and law by concluding the goods were counterfeit and awarding damages without sufficient proof of harm.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected both arguments.

“The allegation that the toner boxes were opened in the absence of the appellant and could have been tampered with is not supported by any evidence and is a mere suspicion,” the justices observed in their ruling.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s claims that the evidence had been tampered with, questioning the logic behind such an allegation.

“What interest would the respondent have in tampering with counterfeit goods, especially those infringing on their registered trademark? I thus find that the appellant’s goods were counterfeit and were an infringement on the respondent’s trademark,” the court stated.

On the matter of damages, the court reaffirmed that HP had sufficiently demonstrated both the trademark infringement and the potential for commercial loss, thereby justifying the compensation awarded.

“I am unable to fault the learned trial judge for exercising his discretion to award general damages and costs… I therefore find no reason for setting aside the award of general damages,” the ruling added.

Invest or Donate towards HICGI New Agency Global Media Establishment – Watch video here