The Fast Track High Court (Commercial Division) has ordered the destruction of electrical accessories bearing a fake trademark of BG imported from China and are currently being sold and distributed to the public.
It further restrained two persons, Oware Wiafe and Gariel Boakye, importers of the fake trademarks of BG, their servants, agents and assigns from infringing on the BG trademarks.
Serboat Electrical Limited, a local importer of the trademark, is the original user of BG or NEXUS.
The court also awarded GH¢8,000 each to the defendants as general damages as well as cost of GH¢1,500 each.
Serboat Electrical Limited per its international firm, Implex Projects Limited, United Kingdom, took the two defendants to court seeking a declaration that the importation and sale of fake BG/Nexus products in the realm of the defendants had infringed their registered trademarks numbered 32,822.
The plaintiffs were further seeking an order that electrical accessories bearing the fake trademarks by defendants be seized and disposed of in a manner that would not infringe their trademarks.
They were further seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, whether acting by themselves, servants or assigns, from infringing on their trade trademarks and general damages for infringing on their trademarks.
Plaintiff in its case said it was a company registered in the United Kingdom and was the registered proprietor of the trademarks BG and/or NEXUS, which were originally registered by them.
The plaintiff said defendants, who also deal in electrical accessories, had imported products into Ghana from unknown destinations and were selling the fake electrical goods, namely sockets, which bore identical trade mark BG/NEXUS causing a drastic fall in his sales thereby incurring losses.
In their statement of defence the defendants denied plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the trademark or had the exclusive right to import.
They averred that they dealt with genuine products and that they imported their products mainly from Asia denying that they had violated any law in Ghana and that the plaintiff had no cause for the action.
The court in its judgment noted that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case. It said it was persuaded through demonstration and comparison of the two products in court emphasizing that the defendants' products were deceptive and looked like those of the plaintiff.
The court further pointed out the admission of the defendants that they imported their products from China but failed to disclose their suppliers.
The court noted that they failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that their products were from the English manufacturer who had consented to the registration of the BG Trademark by the plaintiff.
The court contended that the defendants could not rely on the purchase on the open market in China in defence of their action adding that they failed to rebut the prima facie made by plaintiff.
"I accordingly find plaintiffs' allegation that their products had been infringed upon proved," the court said, adding that the importation and distribution of products similar to those of the plaintiff had been deceptively branded as "BG".
"It follows that the products are likely to cause confusion with respect to plaintiffs' BG trademark. The factors, which determine consumer confusion, are all present, namely, similarity between the marks in appearance," the court noted.
It therefore held that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the BG trademark in issue and the defendant infringed plaintiff's exclusive right to attach that particular mark to goods when it imported the products for sale.