counterfeited toothbrushes in the honest belief that they were buying the plaintiffs Colgate double action toothbrushes. He established a drop in sales as a direct result by the counterfeit toothbrushes. They stopped supplying the defendant's Colgate double action toothbrushes in April 2016. The counterfeit was being sold at Uganda shillings 24,000/= per dozen. The plaintiffs witness did not adduce in evidence the extent of the damage and the evidence is clear that the plaintiff's products were still being displayed at the Mbale and Mukono supermarkets of the defendant. In fact no counterfeit product was found in Mukono supermarket. The products were only seized in Mbale supermarket. Finally in the case of ARO MFG Co v CONVERTIBLE TOP REPLACEMENT CO. 377 U.S. 466 [US Supreme Court] it was held that damages constitutes the difference between the plaintiffs pecuniary condition after the infringement and what the condition would have been if the infringement had not occurred. The question to be asked in determining damages is how much had the patent holder and licensee suffered by the infringement. Had there been no infringement what would have the license holder made? This principle is repeated in General Tire and Rubber Company versus Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Ltd [1976] RPC 197 (HL) the general rule is that the measure of damages is to be so far as possible the sum of money which would put the injured party in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong. While the above two cases deal with patents, the principles for the award of damages is the same and evidence needs to be adduced to support the loss of profits on account of the infringement. Doing the best I can, because the plaintiffs suit is uncontested an award of Uganda shillings 20,000,000/= would be reasonable in the circumstances for both heads of damage namely passing off of the defendant's goods as that of the plaintiff as well as the infringement of the plaintiffs trademark. The plaintiff is awarded general damages of Uganda shillings 20,000,000/=. Claim for punitive damages; I agree that this court has jurisdiction to enforce the Trademarks Act by way of raising awareness about the seriousness of trademark infringement. I further agree that the defendant displayed the counterfeit goods in such a way as leads to the conclusion that it was calculated to deceive innocent customers that the counterfeit goods were the goods of the plaintiff. Punitive damages were prayed for in the plaint. The word punitive may mean exemplary damages or damages to punish or deter. According to the Oxford A Dictionary of Law Fifth Edition Edited by Elizabeth A. Martin punitive damages are exemplary or vindictive damages given to punish the defendant: ―Exemplary damages (punitive damages, vindictive damages) Damages given to punish the defendant rather than (or as well as) to compensate the claimant for harm done. Such damages are exceptional in tort, since the general rule is that damages are given only to Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 13