The opponent's mark comes from Japan, which is a state party to the Paris Convention and has domesticated the convention under the aforementioned Article 53-2 of the Japanese Trade Mark Act. As previously noted, Uganda has domesticated the Paris Convention through judicial precedents. In the case of Nairobi Java House Ltd v Mandela Auto Spares Ltd Civil Appeal No 13 of 2015, the High Court of Uganda recognized Uganda's domestication of the principle of reciprocal protection among member states to the Paris Convention, where Justice Christopher Madrama (as he then was) stated that: "The Ugandan Trademarks Act 2010 has domesticated some of the principles of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property under sections 44 and 45 thereof." For a foreign mark to be protected in Uganda it should either be registered or should satisfy the ingredients of section 44(3 &4) of the Trademarks Act. Section 44 (3) provides that the Registrar shall not refuse the application for registration in Uganda if the Applicant proves prior use continuously of the mark before the registration of the foreign trademark in the country of origin. According to the facts, the applicants did not adduce any evidence that they been using this mark, Section 44 (4) requires the country of origin to grant Uganda the same treatment. The fact that both countries are signatories to the Paris Conventions means they both accord each other the same protection.While both countries do not provide for articles 6bis protection in the same way, they are hinged on the same multilateral framework as noted in the dictum of Madrama J above. Consequently, from the reading of Article 53-2 of the Japanese Trade Mark Act, it is clear that Uganda being a member of the Paris Convention, goods and services originating from its territory would benefit from the protection. As such the opponent meet the requirements of section 44 (4) and the opposition accordingly succeeds. Issue IV: What are the remedies available for the parties? The opponent prayed for cost for these proceedings against the applicant. The decision in Obong v Kisumu Council [1971] EA 91, is well settled law on award of costs. It is trite law that damages are the direct probable consequences of the act complained of. Such consequences may be loss of use, loss of profit, physical inconvenience, mental distress, pain and suffering.