Colage Double Action toothbrushes and the Colgate Double Action toothbrushes. The two items are identical. The inspectors seized 30 dozens and 5 pieces of the right infringing toothbrushes and demonstrated how they were displayed on the defendant‘s shelves. I watched the video and examined the still photos. PW2 on the other hand testified about the average sales the plaintiff used to make in each of the defendants supermarkets and he testified that the sales went down from 70 dozen per month of the product. He testified that there was a big drop in sales attributable to the introduction of Colage Double Action in the defendant‘s supermarkets. He testified that they stopped supplying the defendant with the colgate double action toothbrushes and thereafter the defendant kept selling colage double action toothbrushes. While the evidence is general and credible, no attempts were made to adduce the testimony of customers or records of sales. The plaintiff‘s action on passing off hangs on the close resemblance and presumptions. In terms of sections 35 and 1 (1) of the Trademarks Act, the statutory ingredients have been proved. In terms of the definition under section 1 (1) there was: ―falsely representing one‘s own product as that of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers.‖ The goods were displayed in such a manner as to make them indistinguishable from that of the plaintiff. Secondly, the goods are identical or in the least closely resemble as to be indistinguishable. Thirdly the plaintiff proved that its sales were affected by going down. Last but not least the plaintiff plaint was not disputed by a defence and the presumption of law is that what the plaintiff averred in the plaint is not rebutted and therefore admitted. It was averred that the defendant was selling and supplying toothbrushes in Mukono, Mbale and Lugazi using the infringing labels. Order 8 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that every averment of fact not rebutted is deemed to be admitted in the following words: ―Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be deemed taken to be admitted, except a against a person under disability; but the court may in its discretion require such facts so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.‖ The provision restates the rule of evidence found in Section 57 of the Evidence Act which provides that: 57. Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties to the proceeding or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings; except that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.‖ Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 10