18 “to act with intent to defraud means to act willfully, and with the specific intent to deceive or cheat; ordinarily for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to oneself.” I wish to point out from the onset that the plaintiff applied for registration of the suit trademark way before the power of attorney was granted to it. The application was filed on 3rd August 2006 and according to the evidence of PW1, when the registration was opposed the plaintiff requested for a power of attorney to formalise the authority. This is stated in paragraphs 13 & 14 of the plaintiff’s managing director’s (PW1) Witness Statement (WS) filed on 31st March 2014 as well as paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of his Supplementary Witness Statement (SWS) filed in court on 23rd June 2014. According to paragraphs 1 & 3 of the SWS, the plaintiff’s relationship with the 2nd and 3rd defendants started in 2006 when its managing director met a one Mr. Shore at the Canton Trade Fair in Guangzhou (China) and they had discussions in which they agreed that the plaintiff would own PANASUPER trademark in Uganda. The said Mr. Shore acted for the 2nd and 3rd defendants who according to paragraph 2 of the SWS had various brands of batteries displayed at their stalls including PANASUPER, PAIR TIGER, POWERSHIBA and POWER FLASH. It is the plaintiff’s evidence that its application for registration of the suit trademark in Uganda was based on the discussions and agreement it had with Mr. Shore at a trade fair in China. No document was tendered in court as proof of that agreement, suggesting that the agreement, if any, was oral at least up to the point when the application was filed. Subsequently, there was a purported formal agreement in the form of an OEM Agreement whose fate this court has already determined herein above. If the application for registration had not been objected to, the plaintiff would have quietly registered the 3rd defendant’s trademark without any formal authority from it. The power of attorney was only got because of the objection. Even then the same was drafted by M/S KMSO Attorneys & Legal Consultants the plaintiff’s then lawyers and just sent to the 3rd defendant for its signature. I must also point out that the plaintiff denied ever being appointed as an agent /distributor of the 2nd defendant’s PANASUPER brand batteries in Uganda and alleged that the letter of distributorship tendered in evidence as Exhibit D7 is a forgery because its managing director did not sign the same. A handwriting expert’s opinion that was obtained as proof of the forgery was 18