of states who are parties to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property shall be regarded as independent of trademarks registered in other countries of the Union including the country of origin. This is under article 6 (3) of the Paris Convention. It is an agreed fact that the Plaintiff was registered in Uganda under the Trademarks Act 2010. It is further agreed that Uganda and China are parties to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883 as amended. I have duly considered the Paris Convention and particularly the focus on the territorial principle in Article 6 of the Paris Convention. Article 6 deals with the conditions of registration and the independence of protection of the same mark in different countries. It explicitly provides that the conditions for the filing and registration of trademarks shall be determined in each country of the Union by its domestic legislation (see article 6 (1)). Article 6 (1) deals with the conditions for filing and registration of trademarks. Secondly article 6 (2) provides that an application for registration of a trademark filed by a national of the country of the Union in any country of the Union may not be refused or a registration be invalidated on the ground that the filing, registration for renewal has not been done in the country of origin. The provision only deals with refusal or invalidation of any application for registration of a trademark on the ground that it was not registered in its country of origin. Thirdly article 6 (3) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property provides as follows: "A mark duly registered in the country of the Union shall be regarded as independent of marks registered in the other countries of the Union, including the country of origin." A trademark is a duly registered trademark in any country of the Union which shall be regarded as independent of a similar or same trademark registered in other countries of the Union. The main defence of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff is not a duly registered trademark owner in Uganda. The submission amounts to a contention that the Plaintiff’s registered trademark should not be considered or should not enjoy protection by forbidding importers of goods bearing a similar or same trademark from a foreign country from selling the goods in Uganda without a licence to do so by the Plaintiff. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 17