2. 3. 4. 5. denied by the 1st plaintiff. However, they are ineffective on account of being unregistered. A right in a trademark is conferred on registration in the Register of Trademarks of a person as a proprietor thereof. The registration of a person as the proprietor thereof is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration of the trademark and all subsequent assignments and transmissions of the same. Therefore the 1st plaintiff had a valid claim in respect of the suit. Court was satisfied that the sale of the soap under the trademark was an exception to the UNBS policy. The sale was authorized and/or done with the knowledge of UNBS. Further that the soap intended for sale by the plaintiffs subsequent to the UNBS prohibition order did not contain any prohibited substance such as mercury. It meets the UNBS standards, regulations and policy. In matters of intellectual property, a trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, product feature or any combination of these that distinguishes in commerce the goods or services of its owner from those of others. In cases where trademark infringement is alleged, as herein, the infringement occurs when a suspected infringer uses a mark for goods or services identical or closely related to those of the plaintiff. The test of infringement is likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is the probability that a reasonable consumer in the relevant market will be confused or deceived, and will believe the infringer’s goods or services come from, or are sponsored or endorsed by, the complainant or that the two are affiliated. The products in the instant case were identical in every possible way; and in view of the admitted fact that the defendants imported into the country a soap product known as Mekako; and in view of the unchallenged evidence that the importation was done without knowledge and/or authority of the plaintiffs, there was infringement. International trademarks are trademarks registered under the international protocols like the Banjul Protocol for registration under Africa Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) to which Uganda is a member state but that in such a case, Uganda would have to be a designated country for purposes of registration of the trade mark. In the absence of any evidence showing that the mark Mekako used by the defendants had been registered under the relevant Protocol or that Uganda was a designated member state for purposes of the trademark, the word ‘Mekako’ was not registered as an international trademark so the defendants’ product was not under the international trademark, if any. In order to create a valid cause of action for passing off there must be a misrepresentation; made by a trader in the course of trade; to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him; which is calculated to injure the business or good will of the trader (in the sense that it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence); which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or will probably do so. These conditions were satisfied in the instant case and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. Judgement in favour of the plaintiff Legislation referred to: Stamps Act Cap 342 Trade Marks Act Cap 217 Cases referred to: Nanoomal Issardas Motiwalla (U) Ltd v Sophie Nantongo & Others HCT-00-CC-CS-0430-2006 (unreported) Reckitt & Coleman Ltd v Borden Inc. [1990] 1 WLR 491. 2