9 They submitted that according to the facts on record the plaintiff/respondent refused to disclose to the 1st and 2nd counter claimant/2nd and 3rd defendants about the Certificate of Registration of the 3rd defendant’s trademark in Uganda. To support this point, they alluded to the evidence of DW1, Mr. Yin Lei that when they appointed Muse-Af Enterprises to register their PANASUPER trademark in Uganda its managing director said he was busy and they did not get any response regarding the trademark until later in 2012 when they appointed another agent Mr. Tekle who told them that the Trademark had been registered in the names of Muse-Af Enterprises and not the 3rd defendant. They contended that these deceitful acts and suppression of truth amounted to fraud as they were calculated to deprive the 2nd and 3rd defendants of their right in the PANASUPER trademark in Uganda. Furthermore, that the plaintiff in his written statement dated 28th March 2014 under paragraph 20 stated that the plaintiff has never entered into a distributorship agreement with the 2nd defendant and yet he attached the agency agreement to the application for a trademark at the Registry of Trademarks. It was therefore submitted that the plaintiff unscrupulously and fraudulently procured and caused registration of the PANASUPER trademark in Uganda well knowing that he is a mere agent by virtue of the power of attorney and the agency agreement submitted to the Registry of Trademarks while registering the PANASUPER trademark. This argument was supported by a passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Ed. Vol. 38 Para 909 to the effect that:“…the person who first designed or used the mark is subject to any rights subsequently acquired by others, entitled to claim proprietorship in it. No person is entitled to put the mark of another person on the register. An agent or representative may not register the trademark of a principal in his own name… An importer of goods may register as his own a trade mark used abroad by a foreign manufacturer of those goods but not previously used in the United Kingdom…“ (Emphasis mine). On the OEM Cooperation Agreement relied upon by the plaintiff, it was contended that the agreement is a forgery and is void for lack of consideration and a creation of the plaintiff to 9