High Court Grants Anton Piller Order, Clarifying that Trademark Infringers May Conceal or Destroy Products if Alerted to Legal Action

Waboga David
Sep 3
4 min read

Introduction

Intellectual property rights enforcement is the foundation of protecting innovation, creativity, and brand reputation in modern commerce. Courts have developed special remedies to prevent infringers from concealing or destroying evidence before a case is heard. Among these orders are Anton Piller Orders, which historically originated in Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch. 55. These orders permit a claimant, under strict judicial supervision, to enter the defendant’s premises to search for, seize, and preserve incriminating evidence that would otherwise be at risk of destruction.

In a recent decision of Crocs, Inc. v Landy Industries Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1653 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 312 (29 August 2025), the High Court (Commercial Division) issued an Anton Piller Order in favour of Crocs, Inc., the global footwear company, against Landy Industries Limited. The Court reaffirmed the legal thresholds for ex parte search and seizure orders under Section 79(2) of the Trademarks Act, Cap 225, particularly in cases of suspected trademark infringement.

Facts

Crocs, Inc. (Applicant), a globally recognized footwear company, held registered ownership of Trademark No. 43489 for the word "CROCS" in Class 25 (footwear, clothing, and lightweight slip-resistant footwear), registered in Uganda on July 8, 2011, and renewed on July 8, 2018. Landy Industries Limited (Respondent) operated a factory in Mbalala Industrial Zone, Mukono, and a sales outlet at God’s Grace Building, Room K13, William Street, Kampala.

In May 2025, Crocs, Inc. discovered through its private investigator, Mr. Henry Sebunya, that Landy Industries Limited had been manufacturing and distributing footwear bearing the "CROCS" trademark, which was visually, phonetically, and conceptually identical to the Applicant’s registered mark.

On May 28, 2025, Sebunya visited the Respondent’s factory in Mbalala Industrial Zone, Mukono, and confirmed the production of counterfeit Crocs footwear. Factory employees advised that purchases could only be made at the Respondent’s Kampala sales outlet. On the same date, Sebunya purchased a carton of counterfeit Crocs-branded footwear from the outlet, evidenced by an e-invoice (Annexure C1) and photographs (Annexure C2).

The Respondent had been distributing substantial quantities of counterfeit footwear throughout Uganda and exporting to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo via its Kampala outlet, which served as a distribution hub.

Crocs, Inc. filed an ex parte application (Miscellaneous Application No. 1653 of 2025) under Sections 79(1) and 79(2) of the Trademarks Act, seeking:

An injunction to restrain Landy Industries Limited from further infringing the "CROCS" trademark pending resolution of Civil Suit No. 0909 of 2025.
An Anton Piller Order to inspect the Respondent’s factory and sales outlet and to seize infringing materials for preservation as evidence.
Costs of the application.

The application relied on an affidavit sworn by Sebunya, accompanied by the Applicant’s trademark registration certificate (Annexure A1, dated April 20, 2012), renewal certificate (Annexure A2, dated renewed certificate (Annexure A2, dated July 20, 2018), and evidence of the counterfeit purchase (Annexures C1 and C2). Sebunya further deposed that a substantial risk existed that the Respondent would destroy, conceal, or transfer infringing products to evade legal accountability, citing its cross-border distribution network.

The Applicant submitted that the urgency of the application justified its ex parte nature, as the Respondent’s extensive supply chain posed an imminent risk of evidence destruction or removal beyond Uganda’s jurisdiction.

Key Issue

Whether the applicant was entitled to an injunction and/or Anton Piller Order under Section 79 of the Trademarks Act.

Court’s Analysis

On the injunction (Section 79(1))

The Court declined to grant the injunction at this stage, holding that it would prejudice the Respondent before evidence was tested at trial. Injunctive relief under Section 79(1) requires inter partes hearing unless exceptional circumstances apply.

On the Anton Piller Order (Section 79(2))

The Court emphasized that Anton Piller Orders are equitable remedies designed to prevent destruction or concealment of incriminating evidence.

Relying on Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch. 55 and Ugandan precedents (Jubilee Industries Ltd v Balle (U) Ltd, HCMA No. 855 of 2020; Nile Breweries Ltd v Johnson Sebuggwawo, HCMA No. 252 of 2024), the Court outlined the three conditions for grant of an Anton Piller Order:

An extremely strong prima facie case;
Serious actual or potential damage to the plaintiff;
Real possibility of destruction or concealment of incriminating evidence.

The Court found all three satisfied:

Crocs held a valid registered trademark.
Landy’s products were visually, phonetically, and conceptually identical to “CROCS.”
There was a risk of destruction or cross-border transfer of infringing goods, given the Respondent’s distribution network.

As Justice Mutesi observed:

“It is likely that a party who markets and sells products under a trademark owned by another party may destroy and/or hide those products if it is alerted of the legal consequences of its conduct.”

Orders of the Court

The Court partly allowed the application and:

Granted an Anton Piller Order authorising Crocs (with advocates, bailiffs, and police officers) to:
- Enter the Respondent’s factory (Mbalala Industrial Zone) and Kampala sales outlet;
- Inspect the premises;
- Seize up to 10 pairs of counterfeit footwear from each location.
Directed Crocs to submit seized items and a return of execution to the Registrar within 5 days.
Held that costs would abide the outcome of the main suit (Civil Suit No. 0909 of 2025).

Legal Significance

The ruling strengthens enforcement of registered marks in Uganda, especially in industries prone to counterfeiting.
The Court acknowledged risks of infringing goods being exported beyond Uganda, reflecting the regional dimension of IP enforcement.

Read the full case