5 That in reply to paragraph.3 the second Respondent avers that it did not require any
authorization from the Applicant to register its trade mark in Uganda, which it duly
did in 2002 and obtained a certificate of registration hereto attached as annexture
„R1‟.
6. That the 2nd Respondent applied for registration of „NGARISHA‟ trade mark and
the application was duly gazetted as required by law (copy of the said application and
the gazette notice attached here to and marked “R2 and R3”respectively).
7. That in reply to paragraph 4 the 2nd Respondent avers that the steel wool which it
manufactures is marketed and sold on its behalf by the 1st Respondent is of good
quality and is in no way calculated to cause confusion in the market or passing oft
8. That the 2‟ Respondent‟s registered trade mark is distinct and clearly different
from the trade mark the Applicant allege is registered in Kenya (copy of
representation of the trade mark of the 2” Respondent and the alleged trade mark of
the Appilcant attached hereto and marked “R4” and “R5” respectively).
9. That the product alleged to belong to the Applicant does not bear the trade mark
similar to that allegedly registered in Kenya and the said product was not before May
2004 known to the 2nd Respondent.
10. That in further reply thereto, the 2nd Respondent denies having caused any loss or
damage to the Applicant by the manufacture, sale and marketing of the said
„NGARISHA‟ steel wool, and avers that instead, it has suffered loss and damage as a
result of the Applicants manufacture, sale and distribution of steel wool similar to
that of the 2nd Respondent”
11. That the 2nd Respondent denies knowledge of the Applicants trade mark nor any
damage or wastage of the same.
12. That the 2nd Respondent denies the contents of paragraph 6 and avers that the
Applicant has no claim against the 2nd Respondent and therefore this application is
misconceived and bad in law.
13. That in reply to paragraph 7 the second Respondent avers that the Appilcant is
not entitled to relief by way of a temporary injunction and denies knowledge of any
damage to be suffered by the Applicant.
14. That is would be an abuse of the Court process if the temporary Injunction is
granted as the Applicant‟s claim against the 2nd Respondent is frivolous and
4