function. The Defendant’s Counsel submitted that a trader cannot register trademarks without manufacturer’s consent and enjoy protection. The trader cannot guarantee the quality of the goods in respect of which the trademark relates unless he or she has authority of the manufacturer. It is good practice elsewhere and courts have declined to allow licensee or distributors to register trademarks associated with foreign manufacturers. Counsel referred to the report by the Trademark Reporter, Official Journal of the International Association and a Review of International Trade Mark jurisprudence volume 93 between May and June 2003 pages 541 – 542. It is the written therein that, the courts have on many occasions prevented licensees and distributors from registering trademarks associated with the goods produced by foreign manufacturers. Canada is a member of the Paris Convention. It follows that this court can also prevent the Plaintiff who is a counterfeiter under section 71 of the Trademarks Act 2010 from being the registered owner. The Defendant’s Counsel emphasised that the registration of the Plaintiff is an illegality brought to the attention of the court and it overrides other factors according to the case of Makula International versus Cardinal Nsubuga (supra). The international practices are against gray marketing and counterfeiting trademarks and that is exactly what the Plaintiff is doing. In Chile and the Central Preventive Commission created under the Chile Anti-Trust Laws, ruled that obtaining of registration of foreign products bearing trademarks cannot prevent sales of legitimate products manufactured in another country and imported onto the Chilean market. Chile is a member of the Paris Convention. The Defendants Counsel prayed that the court should prove the registration of the trademark in Uganda does not prevent a third party from importing goods from China of products with similar trademarks. The Plaintiff failed to establish that it is protected under the Paris Convention. The Plaintiff's Counsel further relied on the Banjul Protocol, 2004. However the Defendant's case is that the marks are internationally registered. The protection under sections 44 and 45 do not require international registration. In the premises the case of Anglo Fabric (supra) relied on by the Plaintiff's Counsel is distinguishable from the facts before the court. The Defendant's case is that the trademarks in issue are registered in China and not internationally registered. International registration is not one of the issues. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 9