Property Organisation (ARIPO) to which Uganda is a member state. Uganda will have to be a designated country for purposes of registration of the trademark. In the absence of registration under the Banjul protocol the trademark could not qualify as an international mark. The Plaintiff's Counsel contended that the Defendant has not adduced any evidence to prove that an application was filed to have it trademarks registered as international mark and offered protection within the Ugandan territory. The submission that section 44 of the Trademarks Act 2010 of Uganda affords protection to marks registered in the country of origin, section 44 of the Ugandan Trademarks Act emanates from article 6 quinquies of the Paris Convention. It provides that every trademark duly registered in the country of origin should be accepted for filing and protected in other countries of the Union subject to the reservations indicated in the article. The reservations include that they are of such a nature as to infringe rights acquired by third parties in the country where protection is claimed. No protection against them can be afforded to the trademark registrations from China because doing so would amount to infringement of the Plaintiffs rights as the registered proprietor of the mark. Until the Plaintiff's trademarks are expunged from the register, it still has a valid claim and priority in the Ugandan territory over and above any other registrations in foreign jurisdictions including those in the country of origin. Additionally section 44 (1) of the Trademarks Act 2010 is subject to subsection 3 which sets out a host of conditions that must be met before such protection is accorded. There must be a notice of objection. Secondly there has to be bona fide use of the trademarks by the manufacturers in the Ugandan territory prior to the application. There has to be proof of prior registration in the country of origin. There must be proof of registration within three months from the date of opposition. There must be reciprocal arrangement of protection between the two countries. The Defendant in this suit does not meet any of the conditions afforded protected under the above section. It is only the owners of the goods in the country of origin who have locus to proceed under section 44. The Plaintiff’s Counsel further submitted that only the manufacturers or their authorised legal representatives have a legal right to proceed and seek legal remedies under the provisions of the law. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 12