22 Firstly, I need to clarify that registration of trademarks is territorial and therefore even though the suit mark had already been registered in China the plaintiff could have still legally registered it in Uganda if only it had not used a fraudulent means. What is faulted here is therefore the means of procuring the registration and not the registration per se. Secondly, even if the power of attorney had authorised the plaintiff to register the suit trademark in its name, this court would have still found a problem with the registration and ordered for its removal from the register. This is because a critical look at the Certificate of Registration, that is, Exhibit P2, shows that the entity registered is MUSE AF ENTERPRISES and not MUSE-AF ENTERPRISES CO. LTD the donee of the power of attorney. Thirdly, I also wish to point out that even if the said trademark had been genuinely registered, section 46 of the Trademarks Act provide for removal of a trademark from the register on the ground of non-use. Under subsection (1) (a) a trademark can be removed from the register if the applicant who is an aggrieved person proves that the mark was registered without a bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration that it should be used in relation to those goods or services by him or her/it and that there has in fact been no bona-fide use of the mark in relations to those goods or services by the owner up to the date one month before the date of the application. Similarly, the trademark can be removed under subsection (1) (b) if it is proved that at least one month prior to the date of the application a continuous period of three years or more elapsed during which the trademark was a registered trademark and during which there was no bona-fide use in relation to those goods or services by any owner. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that ever since the suit trademark was registered the Plaintiff has not used it for any serious purpose other than when it was the solely importer and distributor of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ batteries with that brand. When a new agent was appointed in 2012 the plaintiff according to the evidence of PW1 ceased importing those batteries and it has since then not used that mark. It is therefore my firm view that this is a proper case where a trademark can be removed from the register on the ground of non-use or lack of bona-fide use even if this court had found that it was properly registered. 22