I have carefully considered the submissions of the defendants counsel and I agree that where there has been infringement, the plaintiff whose trademark has been infringed is entitled to compensation on the principles of restitutio in integrum. I do not however agree that the plaintiff can claim under the same heading of restitutio in integrum for infringement of trademark as well as for passing off. The basis for compensation in terms of restitutio in integrum is the same. This is an understanding that the plaintiff suffered loss as a consequence of the passing off and the infringement of a trademark. I must add that there is no evidence that the defendant was responsible for manufacturing or counterfeiting the plaintiff's products. Evidence merely shows that the defendant was selling goods which infringe the plaintiffs trade Mark "Colgate double action". Damages would flow naturally from the act of offering for sale and selling the right infringing goods to members of the public. I also noted that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was inadequate on the question of actual sales achieved by the defendant which conversely would prove the loss to the plaintiff on the premises that customers are deemed to have intended to buy the plaintiffs "Colgate double action" but instead erroneously or mistakenly bought what the defendant put up for sale in the names of "Colage double action". In the case of Attorney General versus Blake [2000] UK HL 45 [UK] cited in The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Case Book LTC Harms 2rd Edition 2012 at page 436 it was held that just like breaches of contract or tort, the general principle regarding assessment of damages is that they are compensatory for loss or injury. The general rule is that the measure of damages is to be, as far as possible, the amount of money which will put the injured party in the same position he would have been in had he not sustained the wrong. In the case of Tommy Hilfiger v Mcgarry & Others [2008] IESC 36 cited in The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Case Book LTC Harms 3rd Edition 2012 at page 438 while agreeing that the basic principle for assessment of damages is restitutio in integrum, it was held that the assessment of damages for infringement and passing off follow the same lines and both claims are frequently taken together with a single award been made. The plaintiff need not show damage and the law presumes that any interference with goodwill by infringement or passing off will result in damage. Restating damage by way of loss of profits may be caused by diversion of customers to the defendant. This requires evidence that the sales achieved by the defendant would necessarily have been obtained by the plaintiff. I have considered the testimony of Edward Lubega, the East African Business Custom Development Executive in Uganda who testified as PW2. In paragraph 5 of his written testimony, he testified that the plaintiff used to make monthly sales of 70 dozens of the toothbrushes to each of the defendants supermarkets branches at Mukono and Mbale. In February 2016 they noticed a drop in sales of the said toothbrushes in the branches of the defendants supermarkets quoted above. They established through investigations that the defendant was selling counterfeit toothbrushes bearing the Mark "Colage Double Action" in the same shelves as "Colgate Double Action". They further established that customers bought the Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 12