Use in the ordinary course of trade of a sign identical to the trade mark of another proprietor for identical goods or services. As regards this type of infringement, it is not necessary to show any likelihood of confusion. This type of infringement is the simplest case, insofar, as the marks are identical and that the goods and services fall within those specified in the registration.
Use in the ordinary course of trade of a sign similar to the trade mark of another proprietor. As regards this type the touchstone is similarity rather than identity. The plaintiff must establish that there exists likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in associating the trade mark of the plaintiff with those of the defendant.
Where a trade mark has a reputation in the Sudan, it would be infringement to use an identical or a similar sign for dissimilar goods or services where such use of the sign is without due cause and has taken unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the mark. The other’s use of the mark after the owner’s mark becomes famous would ultimately cause dilution of the distinctive quality of owner’s mark. This type of infringement arises where the reputation of the mark is such that the use of the mark would take unfair advantage of that reputation or would be detrimental the reputation or to the distinctive character of the trade mark.