Applicant's trade mark and the same is pending hearing before this Honourable Court. The continued sale and distribution of the Respondent's blankets with the insertion of the Applicant's registered trade mark amounts to a misrepresentation to the consuming public that the Respondent‟s blankets are those of the Applicant whereas not. The Respondent's use of the Applicant's registered trade mark is intended to ride on the good will of the Applicant. It is also a deliberate act by the Respondent or the Respondent principals, servants or agents so as to derive benefit from the Applicant's reputation and goodwill in its goods by selling the Respondent‟s goods with the Applicant's registered trade mark. The Applicant avers and repeats that the Respondent and/ or Respondent's agents or servants are infringing the Applicant's registered trade mark, (moon with the logo). The Respondent‟s rebuttal is contained in an affidavit in reply deposed to by Muqtar Ali Zafar, the director of the Respondent affirmed on the 30th of November 2016 where he deposed that: The Respondent was incorporated on the 25th day of September 2008 and has since then been carrying out business whose goods, among others include blankets, textiles and textile goods. The manufacturer of the goods in question is a company called JINSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO LTD whose place of business is in the People's Republic of China. The Respondent has been buying and dealing in the above goods from the above named manufacturer. The manufacturer then appointed the Respondent to be their duly authorised agent in Uganda with regard to their goods which authority the Respondent accepted and continued to act as the manufacturer‟s agent in Uganda with regard to the goods in question. This is according to the appointment letter by the manufacturer annexure "B". The Respondent applied to have the goods registered and was shocked that the application was objected to on the ground that it was already registered by persons dealing in the same goods. He deposes that the Applicant fraudulently applied and obtained protection with the knowledge of the manufacturer‟s existence and without the consent of the manufacturer or dealer and the same goods as his agent, which consent the manufacturer had already given to the Respondent. As a result of the fraudulent acts, the Respondent counterclaims against the Applicants registration in the main suit before the court through its lawyers. The Applicant is not the duly authorised agent of the manufacturer or dealer in the sale and distribution of the above goods and is unlawfully doing so. The Respondent was served with court documents which included an interim application undated for the hearing of the application which proceeded ex parte and the order granted which was prejudicial to the Respondents interests. Since the Applicant is not the lawful authorised agent of the manufacturer, he was never entitled to the grant of an interim injunction and it has continued to pass off as the manufacturers agent whereas not. This affidavit was filed on court record on 1st December, 2016. In a supplementary affidavit in reply filed on 9th December, 2016 dated 9th December, 2016 Muqtar Ali Zafar, director of the Respondent furthermore clarified as follows. The Respondent was incorporated on 25th September, 2008 and has since been carrying on business whose goods among others include blankets, textiles and textile goods. The manufacturer of the goods in question is a company called BINGLING Enterprises Ltd whose place of business is in the People's Republic of China and whose sole distributor is JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD operating in the People's Republic of China. The Respondent was/is a duly authorized agent in Uganda to deal in the impugned goods/products in which authority the Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 2