identical with or nearly resembles it or is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to goods of the same description etc is a question of fact and has to be considered from the evidence. What if the marks do not resemble or are unlikely to cause confusion? The plaintiff‟s claim in the plaint as against the Respondent/defendant is for infringement of the plaintiff‟s registered trademark and passing off of the defendants goods as goods of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark in the names "Purple Moon Uganda Limited" in Class 24 and No. 53206 by July 29, 2015 in respect of textiles and textile goods. The certificate of registration was sealed by the registrar on 8th August, 2016. The registration is for seven years from the first date namely 29th July, 2015 subject to renewal after expiration of the period for 10 years thereafter. There is a pictorial representation of the trademark represented as capital C with a mark that appears like Z in the middle of it. The word “Moon” is written across it in the middle. The defendant filed a written statement of defence denying the claims in the plaint and in paragraph 4 (a) asserts that it was incorporated on 25th September, 2008 and has been carrying out business whose goods among others include blankets, textile and textile goods. The manufacturer of the goods in question is a company called Bingling Enterprises with a place of business in the People's Republic of China and the sole distributor of the goods is JIANSGU Ouman Textile Technology Company Ltd operating from the People‟s Republic of China. The defendant is an authorised agent in Uganda. It is also averred that the defendant had been dealing in the goods since 20th of April 2012. It is asserted that the defendant applied for registration of the goods and was shocked that the plaintiff/Applicant objected to its registration. In paragraph 7 of the plaint and in the particulars of fraud it is clearly averred that the plaintiff knowingly, deliberately and intentionally gave false information that the trademark originally belongs to it whereas not. It is also asserted that the plaintiff is passing off with the manufacturer's goods without the consent or knowledge of the manufacturers. Thirdly, it is asserted that the plaintiff is engaged in a fraudulent exercise of registering a trademark which does not belong to it. In the averment is a subtle admission that the defendant was also dealing in goods bearing the same trademark of which the plaintiff is the registered proprietor in Uganda. The pleadings therefore disclose that it is not a question of similarity but that of identical or same trademarks. The parties have a dispute over the same trademark. The Respondent/defendant filed a counterclaim for cancellation of the Counter Defendant‟s registered trademark and registration of the Counterclaimant‟s trademark dealing in the same goods, general damages, interests and costs of the suit. The Counterclaimant/Respondent repeats in the counterclaim that it is a duly authorised agent in Uganda of the manufacturer. Particularly paragraph 5 (vi) of the counterclaim is pertinent to the question of resemblance as it is averred as follows: Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 13