status quo, till the question to be investigated is disposed of; Likelihood of irreparable injury not capable of being atoned for by award of damages. And where court is in doubt, the application will be granted on the balance of convenience. The following cases were cited in support – Napro Industries Ltd Vs. Five Star Industries Ltd and Another Misc. Appl. 772/2004; where the case of Kiyimba Kaggwa Vs. Hajji Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43 was cited. And the case of Britannia Allied Industries Ltd Vs Sunrise Confectionaries Ltd Misc. Appl. 0288/2005. It was then submitted for the Applicant that the serious question before court is whether the Applicant’s trademark is being infringed. Counsel relied on the affidavit in support and Annexture A & B there to. – The Trademark and the certificate of renewal respectively. Court was urged to look at S.36 of the Trade Mark Act that grants exclusive rights for use where the Trade Mark is registered. Counsel argued that since the Applicant’s trade mark is valid, the Applicant was entitled to the exclusive use of the name “Britannia”. The Principles of Intellectual Property Law by Catherine Colston was relied upon to emphasize that “Trade Marks are protected by registration as trademarks; Registration confers a monopoly over use of a trade mark as long as registration is maintained. Trademarks fall within the sphere of intellectual property because the marketing of new creations is often supported by the development and maintenance of a commercial reputation”. Commenting about the Respondent’s affidavit in reply where it is contended that their Trade Mark is different and distinct from that of the Applicant, Counsel stated that the case of Arcadian Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. John Sinclair Ltd. (1938) EA CA disposes of the Respondent’s argument. The Court of Appeal held in that case that “…. such registration connotes and exclusive right that cannot be vested in two entities having conflicting interests.” Court was also beseeched to rely on the Napro Case (Supra) to find that since it would be difficult to prove damages, then Applicant was likely to suffer irreparable damages.