obtained consent from the owner and the exceptions in subsection 3 do not favour the Plaintiff. In the case of Tecno Telecommunications Ltd versus Kigalo investments Ltd HCMC No. 0017 of 2011, Hon. Lady justice Helen Obura ordered removal of trademark Techno from the register of trademarks upon proof of prior registration in the country of origin. She held that the conditions for removal were satisfied and accordingly ordered for the removal. The decision though not binding is of high persuasive value. Furthermore the Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the right to apply for removal under section 45 (1) is given to the aggrieved person and in this case the Defendant is aggrieved by the said the registration. The submission that the Defendant has no locus standi is self-defeating as it is the Plaintiff who had no locus standi to register the trademarks and the registration thereof was an illegality. Counsel relied on the case of Makula International Ltd versus Cardinal Nsubuga Civil Appeal Number 4 of 1981 reported in [1982] HCB 11. Additionally the Defendant’s Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff’s conduct of using trademark law to create a monopoly is forbidden by international trade practices and amounts to unfair competition forbidden under article 10 of the Paris Convention. The said article enjoins members of the union to protect nationals against unfair competition. It further provides under article 10 (2) that any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters constitutes unfair competition. The Plaintiff is attempting to use trademark law to acquire a monopoly yet it has no authorisation to be the sole distributor of the products in the Ugandan market. The registration is not a bona fide and honest and its sole aim is to exclude other traders from importing goods manufactured in China into the Ugandan market. Furthermore Counsel submitted that the trademark is intellectual property and must contain an element of novelty but not merely copy cutting and counterfeiting already registered trademarks. The registered trademark in Uganda do not permit the purpose of trademarks which is to indicate the origin/or source of goods and services by distinguishing goods of one undertaking from those of another. In the case of Arsenal Football Club versus Matthew Reed Case C-206/01, the European court of justice held that the function of trademarks is to guarantee the identity of origin of the Trademarked goods or services to the consumers or end-user by enabling them without any possibility of confusion to distinguish the goods and services from others with another origin. The proprietor of the mark has the rights to ensure that the trademark fulfils its Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 8