The Plaintiff sought remedies set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint. To wit: A declaration that the intellectual design belongs to the her; a declaration that the Defendant breached the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff; an inquiry as to damages for infringement of copyright or, at the option of the Plaintiff, an account of profits; an order for the payment of all sums found to be due to the Plaintiff upon taking of such an inquiry or account; general damages; interest on the sums due and on general damages at commercial rate and Costs of the suit. If Court had found that the Plaintiff held a copyright in the initial design work; what she would be entitled to would be explored, but in the circumstances, it is not necessary to do so. The remedies sought by the plaintiff are not available to her. The Plaintiff would only have been entitled to the remedies, including damages if court had found her to be the owner of the copyright. S. 45 (4) of the Copyright Act provides for damages to a person whose copyright has been infringed from the person responsible for the infringement. One of the indicators/guides court would have taken into account in awarding damages is “the profit” the Defendant Bank would have made as a result of the infringement. But in this case, it cannot be said that the Bank of Uganda has made any profit out of reproducing a photograph of a sculpture in a public park on a currency note. The bank notes are supposed to feature recognizable icons of society. While the Bank of Uganda makes profits, they cannot be said to be profits made from the use of such a photograph. Consequently, the action brought by the Plaintiff fails for all the reasons set out in this judgment and is dismissed. Each party should bear its own costs. FLAVIA SENOGA ANGLIN JUDGE 28.01.15