Dar es Salaam. A bitter dispute over ownership of five business trademarks between members of the same family has landed before the High Court, with one brother accusing another of infringing trademarks he claims to have registered and seeking Sh16 billion in compensation.
Businessman Khalid Mbarak Salim, who trades as Clock Tower Trade Centre, filed Commercial Case No. 26305 of 2025 against his brother, Omar Mbarak Salim, who trades as Unique Centre.
Mr Khalid claims he is the registered owner of five trademarks, MAK, ROMANO, LA CASA, KLASIK and WESTYORK, which he says he has used to conduct business in Tanzania and abroad.
He says he currently owns 18 shops in Tanzania and has imported various products bearing the disputed trademarks, which he has marketed extensively in Tanzania, Zanzibar, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
According to court documents, Mr Khalid says his extensive use of the trademarks has enabled him to build substantial goodwill and a strong commercial identity.
He says the trademarks were registered between 2007 and 2022 and that his businesses currently generate annual sales of about Sh26 billion.
The businessman argues that these circumstances have established him as a prominent trader with a significant commercial presence and that substantial goodwill and reputation are attached to both the disputed trademarks and his wholesale and retail businesses.
Alleged infringement
Mr Khalid claims that in 2025 he discovered that the defendant had been importing goods from China and other international markets.
He alleges that Mr Omar ordered the manufacture and importation of goods bearing his registered trademarks without his authorisation or consent, despite Mr Khalid being the sole registered owner.
After importing the goods, Mr Khalid alleges, the defendant sold them in the Tanzanian domestic market and neighbouring countries while storing some of them at his shop on India Street in Dar es Salaam.
He further claims that the defendant placed advertisements, banners and large signs bearing the disputed trademarks at his shops along India/Mosque Road and elsewhere in Dar es Salaam, despite having been warned to stop using them.
According to Mr Khalid, the alleged use of the trademarks confused his customers and diminished the value of the products associated with his businesses.
He therefore asked the High Court, Commercial Division, in Dar es Salaam, to declare that the defendant had unlawfully benefited from the goodwill and reputation he had built over the years.
He is also seeking Sh16 billion in special damages, as well as general damages to be assessed by the court.
In addition, Mr Khalid wants a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives and associates from importing goods into Tanzania, conducting business, advertising or selling products using the disputed trademarks.
Brother hits back
In his defence, Mr Omar disputes his brother's claim of exclusive ownership.
He says that in 1996, six brothers agreed to engage in the business of buying and selling household goods, with each operating under separately registered business names.
According to Mr Omar, although each brother operated his own business, they agreed to work together and support one another without clearly defined boundaries separating their commercial activities.
In 2000, he says, the brothers expanded their activities to include the importation, storage, sale and distribution of household goods, electrical appliances, decorative items and electronic equipment as agents for manufacturers and foreign brands.
Mr Omar says that in 2007 the brothers reached an oral agreement to jointly develop, register and promote the “MAK-JAPAN” trademark to protect their shared commercial interests in imported products.
He further claims that he and his brothers, including Mr Khalid, orally agreed to jointly register several other trademarks: MAK and ROMANO in 2015, KLASIK in 2018, and LA CASA and WEST YORK in 2019.
According to the defendant, the registrations were intended to serve the collective interests of the brothers rather than those of one individual.
He further claims that he and Mr Khalid jointly imported goods bearing the MAK and ROMANO trademarks for 10 years, KLASIK for seven years, LA CASA for six years and WEST YORK for four years.
Mr Omar therefore maintains that he and his brothers jointly and simultaneously used the disputed trademarks in a relationship based on mutual trust and confidence.
Dispute emerges
According to Mr Omar, the dispute emerged on May 22, 2025, when Mr Khalid served him with notices demanding that he stop using the trademarks.
He claims that it was only then that he and his brothers discovered that Mr Khalid had allegedly transferred ownership of trademarks they had agreed to develop and use jointly into his own name without informing them.
Mr Omar says his brother had never previously informed him or the other brothers that the trademarks had been registered solely in his name and were his exclusive property.
After checking the Register of Trademarks, Mr Omar claims he discovered that Mr Khalid had registered trademarks that the brothers had jointly owned and used.
He alleges that the registrations were made fraudulently and in bad faith and that Mr Khalid intended to exclude him and his brothers from ownership of the trademarks they had jointly used.
Mr Omar further alleges that the lawsuit was intended to impose penalties and obtain compensation from the brothers despite the disputed ownership of the trademarks.
On June 11, 2025, Mr Omar, together with his brothers Fuad Mbarak Salim and Sabri Mbarak Salim, filed an application with the Registrar of Trademarks and Service Marks at the Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA).
They asked the registrar to determine the rightful ownership of the disputed trademarks and subsequently amend the Register of Trademarks.
The brothers argued that Mr Khalid had provided false information and consequently obtained registration of the trademarks fraudulently and in bad faith.
The dispute before the Registrar of Trademarks remains pending, with no decision having been issued at the time the High Court determined the commercial case.
Court's decision
After hearing submissions from both sides and their lawyers, High Court Commercial Division Judge Hussein Mtembwa said the key issue was whether the commercial case had been properly instituted while applications challenging ownership of the disputed trademarks remained pending before the Registrar of Trademarks.
“At the end of the hearing of the case, I directed the parties to address the issue of whether this case had been properly instituted, considering that there are pending applications before the Registrar of Trademarks at BRELA seeking to rectify the Register or remove the disputed trademarks from the Register,” said Judge Mtembwa.
The judge said he had also examined Exhibit D2 and established that there were pending applications before the Registrar of Trademarks filed by the first defendant, who trades under the names Unique Center and Clock Tower Furniture, the second witness, who trades as Clock Tower Shopping Center, and the third witness, who trades under the names United Traders and Aldhurfan Trading.
He said the applicants had alleged that Mr Khalid had registered the CLASIK, ROMANO, MAK and LACASA trademarks in his own name without their consent and in bad faith.
The judge noted that the parties had earlier agreed that applications concerning rectification of information in the Register or removal of the disputed trademarks were pending before the Registrar of Trademarks at BRELA.
“In this case, the plaintiff filed the suit alleging interference with his rights in the disputed trademarks. The defendant denied the allegations, maintaining that the plaintiff had provided misleading information to the Registrar of Trademarks and, as a result, succeeded in registering the disputed trademarks solely in his name,” said Judge Mtembwa.
He ruled that the commercial case could not be satisfactorily determined while the applications challenging the registration of the disputed trademarks remained pending before the Registrar.
“In my view, this case cannot be satisfactorily determined while there are pending applications challenging the registration of the disputed trademarks,” said Judge Mtembwa in his ruling dated Thursday, August 27, 2026.
He said the registrar's decision could validate or invalidate the defendant's actions during the period in which the trademark registrations were valid, depending on the evidence presented.
“That alone may conflict with the decision of this court if the claims of infringement of rights are allowed to proceed,” said the judge.
He therefore ruled that the court should first await the outcome of the applications before the Registrar of Trademarks.
“Given the nature of this dispute, this court should first wait for the Registrar of Trademarks to determine the applications before him,” said Judge Mtembwa.
He added that it was in the public interest for the High Court not to pre-empt the outcome of the applications, saying this would help avoid conflicting decisions between the two institutions and maintain consistency in the administration of justice.
Case dismissed
“Taking all these matters into consideration, this case is dismissed with no order as to costs, allowing the parties to continue pursuing the dispute before the Registrar of Trademarks,” said Judge Mtembwa.
The ruling was posted on the court's website on Tuesday, September 1, 2026.
The judge, however, left the door open for the parties to return to court after the administrative process has been concluded.
“The parties, if they so wish, are at liberty to bring any complaint before this court in accordance with the law after the applications pending before the Registrar of Trademarks and Service Marks have been concluded,” said Judge Mtembwa.
The ruling therefore leaves the central question of ownership of the five disputed trademarks unresolved for now, with the matter first required to go through the Registrar of Trademarks before any fresh court action can be pursued.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
