6. The applicant before the court must show firstly that it is an aggrieved person in the circumstances of that particular case. Secondly that there is a registered trade mark. Thirdly that trademark was registered without a bona fide intention to use the same and there has been no use of the same up to one month before the application is brought to court, or that for a continuous period of 5 years up to one month before the bringing of the application there was no bona fide use of the trademark in relation to the goods for which it was registered. 7. In the affidavit sworn by Mr. Richard Rujugiro in support of this application it averred, and this is not contested, that the applicant is the registered proprietor of trademark ‘YES’ in the Republic of South African, Algeria, Adorra, Angola, Benelux, Iran, Jordan, Lesotho, Liberia, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Tajiksitan, Uzbekistan and Zambia. Copies of the registration of trademark have been to the affidavit. The affidavit also asserts that the applicant is the registered trade mark owner under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol with the World Intellectual Property Organisation and a supporting certificate is attached. In South African it has authorised the use of its trademark Mastermind Tobacco South African (Pty) Ltd in relation to the manufacture of cigarettes and smokers articles. 8. Desirous of exploiting the Ugandan Market the applicant applied for registration of the said trademark in Uganda on 24 February 2004 but this was rejected on the ground of the existence of a similar registration by the respondent no.1. I am satisfied the foregoing facts establish the applicant as an aggrieved person for purposes of de registration for non use of the said trademark. 9. On inquiry from the Uganda Revenue Authority the tax agency notified the applicant that no person manufactures or imports into Uganda Tobacco products of the YES brand or trademark. Though the letter in question from the Uganda Revenue Authority does not address the time period to which it refers other than the current period, the obligation must be borne by the trademark owner/respondent to show use of the trademark in relation to the goods in question for which it is registered. The trademark owner is in the best position to show this. The respondent has not done this. 10. I am satisfied that it has been established that the respondent no.1 had no intention to make bona fide use of the trademark in question and has not done so for the last continuous period of 5 years. 3