A high-stakes trademark dispute between two international beverage giants has ended in a decisive victory for San Miguel Brewing International Limited after Uganda’s Assistant Registrar of Trademarks dismissed an attempt by Austrian energy drink maker Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH to cancel the registration of the Red Horse trademark.
In a 21-page ruling delivered on June 23, 2026, Assistant Registrar of Trademarks Kukunda Lynette Africa found that despite sharing the word “Horse,” the two brands are visually, conceptually and commercially distinct and are unlikely to confuse Ugandan consumers.
The decision allows San Miguel Brewing International Limited to retain its trademark registrations for Red Horse in Uganda, ending nearly six years of legal contest over the ownership and use of the brand in the country.
The dispute
The dispute dates back to September 2020 when Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH applied to have two trademarks—UG/T/2016/055988 and UG/T/2016/055989 for “Red Horse” in Class 32—removed from Uganda’s trademark register.
Power Horse argued that it had been using and registering its Power Horse trademark in Uganda since 2008 and had built an international reputation in more than 50 countries.
According to the company, San Miguel’s registration unlawfully incorporated the dominant and distinctive element “Horse” from its earlier trademark, creating a likelihood of deception, confusion and unfair association among consumers.
Power Horse further argued that the registration violated Sections 9, 23 and 25 of Uganda’s Trademarks Act and Uganda’s obligations under the Paris Convention.
The Austrian company also claimed the registration had been made procedurally in error because it had applied for an extension of time to oppose the Red Horse application before the publication period expired. It maintained that while awaiting a decision on the extension request, it filed a notice of opposition, yet the Registrar proceeded to register the Red Horse trademarks.
San Miguel rejected every allegation.
The brewing company argued that its trademark had been lawfully filed, examined, published and registered under Uganda’s trademark laws. It further maintained that the words “Red Horse” and “Power Horse” have peacefully coexisted in numerous jurisdictions around the world without causing confusion.
San Miguel also emphasized that “Horse” is a common word that cannot be monopolized by a single trader.
The company told the Registrar that Red Horse beer has existed since 1983 and is registered in more than 60 jurisdictions with sales in over 70 countries, demonstrating its own distinct identity and international goodwill.
Registrar rejects procedural complaint
One of Power Horse’s central arguments was that the trademark had been registered in error because the Registrar had not determined its application for an extension of time before proceeding with registration.
However, the Registrar dismissed that claim.
Applying the literal interpretation of Regulation 79 of the Trademarks Regulations, 2023, the Registrar held that merely filing an application for extension of time does not automatically suspend trademark registration proceedings.
Instead, an extension only becomes effective after the Registrar expressly grants it.
Since no extension had been granted, the subsequent notice of opposition filed by Power Horse had no legal foundation.
The ruling held that the responsibility lay with the applicant to establish whether its request had been approved before taking further procedural steps.
Consequently, the Registrar found that the registration process had been properly conducted and that no procedural error had occurred.
Side-by-side comparison
The heart of the dispute centered on whether the two trademarks were confusingly similar.
The Registrar undertook a detailed comparison of both brands, examining their appearance, sound, meaning and overall commercial impression.
The ruling noted that the Power Horse trademark features a rearing black horse positioned before a striking geometric red-and-white background, with the words “Power Horse” appearing beneath the image.
By contrast, Red Horse consists of a red horseshoe combined with a horse’s head enclosed within a circular design against a bright yellow background, with the words “Red Horse” prominently displayed inside.
While both trademarks include horse imagery, the Registrar concluded that they project entirely different visual identities.
According to the ruling, Power Horse conveys movement, vitality, energy and performance—qualities naturally associated with an energy drink.
Red Horse, on the other hand, communicates steadiness, confidence, stability and tradition, characteristics more consistent with a beer brand.
The Registrar concluded that the marks produce different commercial impressions when viewed as complete trademarks.
One shared word was not enough
Power Horse argued that the dominant feature of both trademarks is the word “Horse.”
However, the Registrar declined to isolate that single word.
Instead, the decision relied heavily on the internationally recognized “anti-dissection rule,” which requires trademarks to be examined as complete marks rather than broken into individual components.
The ruling emphasized that consumers do not normally analyse trademarks piece by piece.
Instead, they remember the overall impression created by the mark.
Although “Horse” appears in both brands, the Registrar found that the remaining visual elements, colours, wording and concepts sufficiently distinguish one mark from the other.
The decision therefore rejected the argument that the shared word alone created a likelihood of confusion.
Different products despite same trademark class
Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the ruling concerns the treatment of the products themselves.
Both trademarks are registered in Class 32, which includes beers, mineral waters, soft drinks, fruit beverages and other beverages.
Power Horse argued that registration within the same class increased the likelihood of confusion.
The Registrar disagreed.
Although acknowledging that both trademarks fall within the same Nice Classification category, the ruling stressed that trademark classes alone are not conclusive in determining similarity of products.
Instead, the Registrar examined the nature, purpose, ingredients, method of use, distribution channels and consumer expectations surrounding each product.
The analysis found that energy drinks and beer fundamentally serve different purposes.
Energy drinks are non-alcoholic stimulants intended to improve alertness, concentration and physical performance.
Beer, by contrast, is an alcoholic beverage consumed primarily for leisure, recreation and social enjoyment.
While both products may occasionally be sold in supermarkets, restaurants, convenience stores and bars, they are generally displayed separately because of their different compositions and regulatory requirements.
The Registrar further observed that energy drinks and beers are neither complementary products nor direct competitors.
Consumers purchase them for entirely different reasons.
Accordingly, the possibility that an average consumer might mistakenly believe one product originates from the producer of the other was considered remote.
Average consumer test
The ruling devoted considerable attention to explaining how trademark disputes should be assessed through the eyes of an average consumer.
Drawing extensively on international trademark jurisprudence, the Registrar observed that an average consumer is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant but does not normally compare competing trademarks side by side.
Instead, consumers rely upon their general memory of a brand.
Applying that principle, the Registrar concluded that an ordinary Ugandan consumer would easily distinguish between the two brands despite the shared reference to horses.
The decision held that the differences in design, colour, wording and commercial message outweigh any similarity arising from the use of the word “Horse.”
International coexistence strengthens San Miguel’s case
Another factor that strengthened San Miguel’s defence was the international coexistence of both trademarks.
The Registrar conducted an independent search of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Global Brand Database.
That search established that both Power Horse and Red Horse are simultaneously registered in numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Brazil, Switzerland, Cambodia, Oman and the Philippines.
Although foreign trademark registrations are not binding in Uganda because trademark rights are territorial, the Registrar found them persuasive.
The peaceful coexistence of the two marks in multiple jurisdictions suggested that they are capable of existing without causing consumer confusion.
This international practice reinforced the conclusion already reached under Ugandan law.
Application dismissed
Having rejected every major argument advanced by Power Horse, the Registrar ruled that the Red Horse trademarks had been validly registered.
The application for cancellation was dismissed in its entirety.
The Registrar further ordered that the Red Horse trademarks remain on Uganda’s register with full legal protection.
Each party was directed to bear its own legal costs.
Wider implications
The ruling is expected to become an important precedent for trademark disputes in Uganda.
It provides detailed guidance on how the Registrar intends to assess allegations of confusing similarity, particularly where competing trademarks share a common descriptive word but differ significantly in their overall presentation.
The decision also clarifies that registration within the same trademark class does not automatically mean products are legally similar.
Instead, regulators will consider how consumers perceive the products in the real marketplace, including their purpose, nature, composition and method of use.
For multinational companies seeking trademark protection in Uganda, the ruling reinforces the importance of evaluating entire brand identities rather than relying on ownership of a single common word.
For San Miguel Brewing International Limited, the judgment secures continued protection of the Red Horse brand in Uganda.
For Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH, it marks the end of a lengthy attempt to remove a rival trademark from Uganda’s register—and a reminder that sharing one word does not necessarily amount to trademark infringement.
