the refusal or granting of the application to register the trademark. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar has a right of appeal to the court. Under section 16 where the application for registration of the trademark in part "A" or part "B" of the register has been accepted and the application has not been objected to the Registrar shall unless the application has been accepted in error register the trademark accordingly. At this stage of the proceedings the question remains whether the Defendant can challenge the registration? As far as the question as to whether the Defendant is an aggrieved party is concerned, the issue is whether its claim to be a trader in the goods is sufficient for purposes of giving it locus standi. Secondly the court has to consider the fact that the proprietors ascertained by the Defendant are not parties to this suit. The Defendant is not an agent of the alleged proprietors of the trademarks registered in China. I have accordingly considered the authorities submitted in the arguments. The closes authority is that of my sister Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Obura in TECNO Telecom Ltd vs. Kigalo Investments Ltd HCMC No. 0017 of 2011. In that case an application was brought under section 45 and 46 of the Trademarks Act 2010 to have the mark TECNO which had been registered in Uganda removed from the register on the ground of proof of the registration of that mark in a country of origin. The Applicant was an attorney of TECNO Telecom Ltd and dealt in phones. The Applicant was an appointed agent in Uganda of the firm registered in Hong Kong. They dealt in a phone called TECNO and registered the name as a trademark. On the question of locus standi the Hon Judge held that the Applicant was an aggrieved party who can bring an action under sections 45 and 46 of the Trademarks Act 2010 because the Applicant demonstrated that it is the registered owner of the trademark TECNO and it manufactures and deals in TECNO phones in Hong Kong, China. On the above point on locus standi, the above authority can be distinguished from that of the Plaintiff’s case. In this case the Defendant is not an agent of the Chinese Trade mark proprietors and does not purport to be the owner. The Defendant is just an importer. Secondly it is a fact that is not controversial that the alleged owners in China are not parties to this action or represented in this suit. The Defendant is an importer of the questioned goods and has nothing to do with the trademark on the goods. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 26