Both parties filed written submissions addressing points of law without first adducing evidence. The facts are sufficiently addressed in the written submissions of Counsel and the issues addressed are mainly of interpretation of law based on agreed facts. The Plaintiff's written legal arguments The Plaintiff’s cause of action is based on infringement by the Defendant of the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff applied for and registered its various trademarks bearing Chinese symbols and words under Part A of the Trademark Register, which trademarks identify an assortment of goods that the Plaintiff trades or deals in. On the other hand it is the Plaintiff's contention that the Defendant's case is that both parties procured the goods from the open market in China and these goods come with their manufacturer’s marks. Consequently that the Plaintiff is seeking to have a monopoly over the goods which both parties deal or trade in. The Plaintiff's Counsel submitted generally on the issues for determination of court. 1. Whether the Defendant has and continues to infringe on the Plaintiffs registered trademark? 2. Whether the Defendant is a bona fide user of the Chinese manufactured marks? 3. Whether the impugned marks qualify as international marks? 4. Remedies available to the parties? The Plaintiff's Counsel agreed that both parties procured goods from the same sources in China though no evidence was put forward to prove that those very trademarks are registered and offered protection in China being the country of origin. Section 101 (1) of the Evidence Act is to the effect that whoever alleges a fact must prove it. Notwithstanding the trademark registration is exhibit a real issue and as such, registration in the country of origin may not afford a party registration in a designated country. The territorial principle is recognised under the Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property, 1883 to which both Uganda and China are parties. Article 6 (3) of the Paris Convention states that it trademark duly registered in the country of the Union shall be regarded as Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 2