The Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff is a trader in Chinese products and had registered various trademarks in Uganda. The trademarks registered relate to the goods which both the Plaintiff and the Defendant procured from an open market in China and sell them in the Ugandan market without altering the original manufacturer's trademarks. The Plaintiffs trademarks are registered translations from Chinese to English of the trademarks on the goods in which both parties deal and are known to all traders dealing in those products. These trademarks are registered in China by the manufacturers. From the above facts the Defendant’s Counsel maintained that the Plaintiffs suit for infringement and seeking the remedies for injunction is misconceived because there was no infringement and ought to be dismissed. On the first issue of whether the Defendant has and continues to infringe on the Plaintiffs registered trademarks? Counsel submitted that it was with the advice of the court that the issues are to be narrowed down to consider whether the registration of the disputed trademarks in Uganda conferred exclusive rights on the Plaintiff. In total disregard of the directions, the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the issues as contained in the scheduling memorandum. For that reason the Defendant adopted the same issues while also submitting on the issue directed by the court. The first issue was whether the Defendant has and continues to infringe the Plaintiffs registered marks? The Defendant is a trader in Chinese products and procures its products from China in an open market and the Plaintiff also procures its products from China from the same sources as that of the Defendant. The marks purportedly registered with the Plaintiff are mere translations from Chinese/English identical with those of the manufacturers. The fact is not in dispute and what is in dispute is whether these marks are registered in China and whether the Defendant is infringing or whether the Plaintiff has exclusive rights over these trademarks in Uganda. The Defendant engaged a team of lawyers in China to conduct searches in the trademarks Registry of China and their search indicate that the disputed marks are duly registered in China. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 5