Mr. Solomon Abongo is the CEO of Delimwini Enterprise. An entity that commenced business in January 2020. The entity has a product called Hardy-Fresh. On 15th January, 2021, Mr. Abongo realized that a rival company has produced a similar product and c

To advise Mr. Solomon Abongo on these issues regarding Delimwini Enterprise and its competitor, we will examine each question systematically: ### a. Liability for Similar Naming The rival company, by using a name similar to "Hardy-Fresh," may not necessarily be liable for trademark infringement unless Mr. Abongo has registered "Hardy-Fresh" as a trademark. In general, a product name must be distinctive enough to be legally recognized and protected. If "Hardy-Fresh" is not registered and is considered merely descriptive, it may be difficult to establish liability. Additionally, if customers can easily distinguish between the two products and there is no confusion in the marketplace, it weakens the case for infringement. Therefore, unless "Hardy-Fresh" is trademarked or there is evidence of customer confusion, the rival company may not be liable. ### b. Impact of Preference and Confusion If "Hardy-Fresh" is the most preferred product among customers and there is actual confusion leading customers to mistake "Hurry-Fresh" for "Hardy-Fresh," this could strengthen Mr. Abongo's case. Trademark law protects the goodwill associated with a brand. If it can be demonstrated that the rival company’s use of a similar name has led to consumer confusion—a critical factor in proving trademark infringement—Mr. Abongo may have a valid claim against the rival company. The likelihood of confusion increases the potential for a successful claim and could lead to the rival company being liable. ### c. Spreading False Information The rival company’s action of spreading false information about "Hardy-Fresh" being made with expired materials constitutes defamation or disparagement of a competitor’s goods. This is typically considered a wrongful act in law, particularly if the statements are made with knowledge of their falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth. Such conduct not only damages the reputation of Delimwini Enterprise but may also lead to loss of business, giving Mr. Abongo grounds to pursue legal action based on unfair competition or defamation. He could seek damages for the harm caused to his business. ### d. Liability for Action of Private Security The question of liability in this scenario hinges on the concept of vicarious liability. Generally, an employer may be liable for the actions of an employee if those actions occur within the course of their employment. Since the security guard is not an employee of Delimwini Enterprise but of a private security company, the liability of Delimwini Enterprise would depend on whether the actions taken by the security guard were authorized and within the scope of his duties. If the act of slapping the rival company's owner was outside reasonable and appropriate conduct in the course of his security duties, then Delimwini Enterprise likely would not be held liable. Instead, liability may fall on the private security company for their employee's actions, depending on the contractual terms and the nature of the security guard's employment. In summary: a. The rival company might not be liable unless "Hardy-Fresh" is trademarked or there's customer confusion. b. If actual confusion exists and "Hardy-Fresh" is preferred, it strengthens Mr. Abongo's case for infringement. c. Spreading false information is likely wrongful and gives grounds for legal action for defamation or disparagement. d. Delimwini Enterprise may not be liable for the actions of a third-party security guard unless the actions are deemed to be within the scope of employment.