"Colgate double action" or "Colage double action" it is also in the getup. Both marks are in the use in relation to toothbrushes. Section 36 (2) forbids the use of the mark by way of use of a mark that is identical or nearly resembles the registered owners mark as likely to cause confusion. By selling the product the defendant was infringing the registered owners mark by selling goods which have identical marks or which so nearly resembles the plaintiff‘s registered mark as to cause confusion that the goods sold are that of the plaintiff. Secondly by displaying the goods on the shelve the defendant infringed the plaintiffs right to exclusive use of its trademark in ―Colgate Double Action‖ by offering for sale toothbrushes bearing the Mark‖ Colage double action. In the premises issue number one is answered in the affirmative. Issue Number 2: Whether the defendants act of offering for sale toothbrushes bearing the Mark "Colage double action" constitutes passing off of the plaintiffs toothbrushes which bear the Mark "Colgate double action"? I have considered the evidence as written above and the definition of passing off. Section 35 of the Trademarks Act preserves the common law cause of action of ―passing off‖ and the remedies in respect thereof and it provides as follows: ―35. Passing off Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect a right of action against a person for passing off goods or services as the goods or services of another or the remedies in respect of the right of action.‖ The right of action by a plain reading of the section is the right of action of a rights owner of a trademark suing another person for passing off goods and services as the goods and services of the rights owner. Passing off has a statutory definition under section 1 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 2010 which defines it in the following words: ――passing off‖ means falsely representing one‘s own product as that of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers‖ By this definition there is an attempt by another person to pass of their product as that of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers. I have found the phrase ―representing one‘s own product‖ problematic. What if the trader who sells the product is a buyer from the person who actually counterfeited the product to resemble that of the person who has the exclusive right thereof? Is the trader liable without proof of who packaged or imitated the trademark if another person in packaging the product? Passing off was discussed in Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and others [1990] 1 All ER 873 by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle in similar terms like that under section 1 (1) of the Ugandan Trademarks Act, Act 17 of 2010. He said: Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 8