What the respondent has been engaging in is an offence under section 77(c) of the Trademarks Act 2010. That section provides that:“A person who intentionally sells goods, exposes goods for sale, has goods in his or her possession for the purpose of trade or manufacture, imports goods into Uganda for the purpose of trade or manufacture or exports goods for purposes of trade or manufacture, knowing that or reckless whether or not (a)……………; (b)……………; (c) a registered trademark is falsely applied to them or in relation to them; commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding forty eight currency points or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both”. The applicant submitted at length that the respondent was neither a manufacturer, nor an agent nor a genuine dealer in TECNO products and as such registration of that trademark was without a bona-fide intention to use the same in relation to those goods or services. The respondent never rebutted this allegation at all despite the chance it had to do so. It was instead contended that the respondent as the registered owner of TECNO mark was using it in the manner stated above and therefore it should be protected by court. Surely, should court allow the respondent to benefit from its act of illegality as it continues using the trademark in a manner that clearly cannot be said to be bona-fide use? My answer would be NO because the facts and circumstances of this case show that the use of this trademark by the respondent is not warranted in the economic sector because there is no particular goods it protects and maintains or creates a share in the market for in Uganda. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the trademark TECNO was registered by the respondent without a bona-fide intention to use the same and indeed there has never been any bona-fide use of it since it was registered in 2008. In the result, I order that the trademark TECNO registered by the respondent as No. 31786 in 2008 be removed from the register of trademarks in Uganda for non-use with immediate effect in accordance with section 46 of the Trademarks Act, 2010. In view of my finding that the respondent’s act is illegal as it contravenes the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 2010, I direct that this matter be referred to the relevant authorities for investigation and further management. Costs of this application are awarded to the applicant. I so order. Dated this 29th day of November 2011. Hellen Obura