Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v Millborrow Health Animal Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

HH 04-25

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
9 January 2025
Citation
HH 04-25
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHH 04
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Appeal

Bench

Presiding
Dube JP
Full Bench
Dube JPG Mutasa (Assessor)R Mlambo (Assessor)
Areas of Law
Trade Marks LawIntellectual Property Law
Keywords
HI-TETHITETTrade mark expungementPrior useBad faith registrationPharmaceutical trade marks
Tags
Intellectual PropertyTrade MarksPrior UseExpungement
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 1
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • E
  • u
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • n
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • ,
  • a
  • r
  • t
  • 5
  • E
  • u
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • n
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • ,
  • a
  • r
  • t
  • 1
  • 4
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the Registrar erred in expunging Bayer’s HI-TET mark","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Bayer registered after Milborrow’s lapse; Milborrow later renewed"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether Bayer had prior common law use predating Milborrow’s registration","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Bayer’s MCAZ registration from 1980; distributorship relationship"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether Milborrow registered its mark in bad faith","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Milborrow was distributor; marks identical"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

Dispute between two pharmaceutical companies over identical veterinary trade marks HI-TET and HITET. Appellant Bayer, a German company, had registered its mark in 2009 after respondent Milborrow’s 1989 registration had lapsed for non-renewal. Milborrow later renewed its lapsed registration. Both parties sought expungement of the other’s mark. Registrar expelled Bayer’s mark. Bayer appealed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →