trademark matters registered the Plaintiff for the trademarks consisting of Chinese characters and Latin characters in part “A” for trademark branding of consumer products such as foods and beverages listed above. The question of good will protection of any other registered proprietor in the country of origin can only be considered when they or their agents come to court to challenge the Plaintiff. That is when the courts will have an opportunity to consider the marks on merits. In the meantime the Defendant has no locus standi to challenge the Plaintiff’s registration. The Plaintiff enjoys protection of its mark by virtue of statutory protection upon first registration in Uganda and under section 37 (1) of the Trademarks Act 2010. Furthermore in conclusion of the submissions on section 44 of the Trademarks Act 2010 The registration of the Plaintiff has already been done. For the Plaintiff to be deregistered the matter has to be resolved in a suit for deregistration by a person having locus standi. The court is mindful of the fact that there could be a matter to be tried as to whether the Plaintiff is properly registered as a distributor or as a producer of the marks in question. The Registrar did exercise discretionary powers to register the Plaintiff’s trademark and ought to be made a party to explain the basis of the registration on the application of an owner or agent of the owner of a registered trademark that is similar to that registration in a country of Origin of the goods. That question is not properly before this court and cannot be tried. Last but not least there is a question of whether the Defendant is a bona fide user of the trademark having innocently imported products from China bearing trademarks that the Plaintiff seeks to bar on the ground that they require the Plaintiffs licence. It is true that the Defendants are traders but they cannot claim innocence by virtue of advertisement for the trademarks advertised by the Plaintiff. If the trademarks are similar or the same the Plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction and the remedies claimed in this suit. When the issue of law was framed, it was on the assumption that the trademarks in dispute are the same or similar and that they would among other things confuse the consumers of the products. It is only after examining the marks did I reach different understanding of the issues for determination. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 29