The Plaintiff relies on the registration of trademarks bearing Chinese symbols and words in Uganda and registered under Part A of the Trademarks Act. The Plaintiff alleges that it was at all material times trading in the relevant goods by way of selling and distributing assorted goods bearing its registered trademark. While conducting a field survey, the Plaintiff established that the Defendant had been trading by selling, supply and distribution of assorted goods bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. Consequently it is alleged in the plaint that the Defendant has been infringing and continues to infringe the registered trademark of the Plaintiff and is wrongfully selling and distributing goods bearing various registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. The Defendant denies the allegation and avers in his written statement of defence that it was not in any way infringing the Plaintiff's trademark but rather the Plaintiff is in disguise seeking monopoly over goods in respect of which both the Defendant and Plaintiff deal. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant both procured the same goods from the same companies who are registered proprietors of the trademark under which they manufacture and export goods to Uganda and other parts of the world. The Defendant further asserted that it was selling goods bearing the manufacturers marks and it is not in any way infringing the Plaintiff's trademark which is materially different from those purportedly registered by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is afraid of fair competition in an open market. The Plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the main suit in Miscellaneous Application No. 136 of 2015 to restrain the Defendant from trading in those goods. It was during a discussion of the way forward with Counsel that I wondered whether the matter raised was not a matter of law. This is because the Defendant does not dispute the question of fact that the Plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the suit trademarks attached to the plaint. Secondly the Defendant did not dispute the fact that it purchased goods from China whose trademarks could be examined where necessary. Thirdly the Defendant is not responsible for the trade marks on the goods it deals with and asserts that it purchased the goods from an open market in China as an importer into the Ugandan market. With some discussions as to whether the facts were controversial Counsels agreed finally to file submissions on the basis of agreed facts on points of law. This was because the law for arguing a prima facie case on behalf of the Applicant/Plaintiff for the grant of a temporary injunction was the same as that for arguing the main suit. What remained was whether the trademarks on the goods sought for which the Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 14