12 application, that is, 3rd August 2006. I wish to emphasize that it is only upon registration that the date of the application is deemed to be the date of registration. Therefore in this case it is only when the mark was registered on 13th May 2008 that the date of application became the date of its registration. It is the firm view of this court that prior to entry of the mark onto the register that retrospective application of the date of registration would not apply and in effect until the entry onto the register the plaintiff in this case would not be the registered proprietor of the mark. It would therefore not be possible for the plaintiff to contract in respect of the said mark as its owner before the entry of the mark onto the register. Any purported agreement in respect of the same would be a nullity. I have also had the opportunity to look at the Statutory Declaration declared by Mr. Muse Afeworki the managing director of the Plaintiff Company on 27th March 2008 in reply to the Statutory Declaration in support of the objection application. The Plaintiff’s managing director stated in paragraph 3 thereof that the respondent (plaintiff in this suit) was a lawfully appointed attorney of the M/S Linyi Huatai Battery Manufacture Co. Ltd (the 3rd defendant in this suit), the registered owner of the PANASUPER trademark No. 52384 in China. He even attached a copy of the Certificate of Registration and a power of attorney. If indeed the plaintiff was the owner of that trademark as at the date of the OEM Agreement, why didn’t its managing director state so in the Statutory Declaration and attach the agreement as proof? Why would it also require a power of attorney to prove that it is an attorney of the 2nd defendant? It is not legally possible that the Plaintiff was the lawful attorney of the registered proprietor of the PANASUPER trademark and at the same time the owner of the same trademark. For that reason, I find that the OEM Agreement could not have been competently entered into when the plaintiff’s managing director in his own statement on oath acknowledged that the plaintiff was the lawful attorney of the owner of the mark which it was just seeking to register by the application being objected to and as at that time the mark had not yet been registered in Uganda. I would therefore agree with the defendants that the OEM Agreement is a 12