Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction were also registered in China by the producers of the products. The facts are that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of various trademarks bearing Chinese words and symbols that formed the subject matter of the suit. The Plaintiff is registered in Uganda under the Uganda Trademarks Act 2010. Secondly the Plaintiff applied to have those trademarks registered under Part A of the trademark register. The Defendant has been dealing in the goods from China which the Plaintiff alleged bore the Plaintiff’s registered trademark without authority from the Plaintiff. On the other hand as far as the Defendant is concerned, the Defendant is a trader in various consumer-products which it imports from China into Uganda. These goods are bought in the open market in China and bear original manufacturers marks and the Defendant resells them without any alteration. The manufacturers whose goods are sold by the Defendant are registered trademark owners in China prior to the Plaintiff’s registration in Uganda. The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff also purchases its products from the same sources and unlawfully purported to register closely related trademarks to the Chinese manufacturer’s marks in Uganda with the intention of outcompeting the Defendant and other traders. As far as the points of law are concerned both Counsels agreed that the controversy can be substantially resolved on a point of law. It was agreed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks which formed the subject matter of the suit in Uganda. Secondly the Chinese manufacturers of the goods in question are not a party to this suit. It is not agreed that the manufacturers in China are the proprietors of the disputed trademarks registered in China prior to the Plaintiff’s registration in Uganda. Secondly it is not agreed the registration of the Plaintiffs Trademarks in Uganda was bona fide. It is further not agreed that trademarks of the Plaintiff in Uganda belong to Chinese manufacturers based in China. I agree with the Defendant’s Counsel that the actual issue which is not based on any controversial facts is whether the registration of the disputed trademarks in Uganda confers exclusive rights on the Plaintiff as far as the registered trademarks are concerned. This is because it is an agreed fact that the Defendants imported goods from China from certain Chinese manufacturers and in the open market. The Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the goods are Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 15