10 defeat the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ interest in the trademark. Counsels submitted that if the OEM Cooperation Agreement existed at the time it was executed on 08th November 2006 then the plaintiff would not have required a power of attorney from the 3rd defendant when the application for registration of trademark was contested. This court was urged to note that this document which purports to transfer all the rights in the trademark PANASUPER in Uganda to the plaintiff was not produced or presented to the Registrar of Trademarks when the application was opposed. It was contended for the defendants that the agreement was fraudulently procured and produced by the plaintiff upon filing of this suit challenging the trademark by the defendants which goes to show fraud on the part of the plaintiff. Furthermore, that Mr. Muse Aferwoki was cross examined on the same and he said that the OEM was not witnessed and no consideration was paid which makes it void for lack of consideration. Counsels therefore prayed that this agreement be struck off the court record. Basing on the evidence of PW1 on cross examination that he stopped importing PANASUPER batteries from 2012 and now imports PAN SUPER from another company in China called Xinda Battery which manufactures Pan Super batteries, it was argued that it is apparent that the Plaintiff is neither a manufacturer nor an importer of the said PANASUPER brand and therefore does not have any claim of right in it as he is not the proprietor of the mark as envisaged under S.19 (1) of Cap.217. Counsels relied on the case of Shri Chander Mohan Kapoor T/A British Herbal Cosmetics vs Amin Chavania T/A Jaskar Enterprises H.C.C.S No. 12 of 2005 wherein an importer of goods registered a trademark which was in the process of being registered in India by the manufacturer and Kiryabwire. J (as he then was) held that: “Taking all the evidence and authorities into consideration I find that it is fitting that the mark be registered a fresh so that the proprietor and in particular the manufacturer of the products „Eldena‟ be allowed to register the said trademark.” It was submitted that the above case law and common law principles have been adopted by the new Trademarks Act of 2010 under S.44 which states that; “subject to subsection (3), the registrar may refuse to register a trademark relating to goods in respect of goods or description of goods if it is proved to his 10