which both Uganda and China are signatories and other international instruments. The international instruments include the Banjul Protocol on marks. The general rule is found under article 6 (3) of the Paris Convention which provides that a mark duly registered in the country of the Union shall be regarded as independent of marks registered in other countries of the union. The position is very clear whether or not the trademarks were registered in China is of no consequence in the Ugandan territory. Secondly the territorial nature of the trademark recognition is further emphasised by article 6 (1) of the Paris Convention which provides that the conditions for filing and registration of trademarks shall be determined in the country of the Union by the domestic legislation of the country. Thirdly the convention takes cognizance of the fact that domestic legislation or the domestic laws within an individual member state have precedence over the convention. Fourthly the Plaintiff applied to the Registrar of Trademarks to have the registered marks registered within the Ugandan territory as local marks and not international markets. The application was approved and the Plaintiff was granted certificates of registration for the various marks within the Ugandan territory. By virtue of the registrations, the Plaintiff has exclusive rights in respect of the marks insofar as Uganda is concerned. Fifthly the registration of the marks was not contested or challenged in the Ugandan territory by an application in accordance with section 44 of the Trademarks Act of Uganda. As such they still stand as local trademarks belonging to the Plaintiff in Uganda. Additionally the territorial nature of trademarks is recognised under the provisions of the Banjul Protocol on Marks as amended in 2004. Section 2 of the Banjul protocol provides that all applications for registration shall be filed either directly or with the ARIPO office or the International property office of a contracting state. Section 3 thereof provides that the application shall indicate the goods or services in respect of which protection of the marks claimed and designate the contracting states in which registration is sought. In the case of Anglo Fabrics Bolton and another versus African Queen Ltd HCCS 0632 of 2006, Honourable Justice Yorokamu Bamwine discussed what amounted to international trademarks. He held that international trademarks and trademarks are registered under international protocols like the Banjul Protocol for registration under the African Intellectual Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 11