6 application was opposed by Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd of Japan, the registered proprietors of Trademarks No. 25731 and 28536 PANASONIC. It is also the plaintiff’s evidence that since the registration of the trademark had been opposed, the plaintiff requested Mr. Shore to formalize the authority under which the plaintiff was empowered to register the PANASUPER trademark following which Mr. Shore procured a power of attorney from the 3rd defendant authorizing the plaintiff to register the trademark in its name and for its own use. It is the plaintiff’s submission that upon obtaining the trademark from the 3rd defendant, it registered the trademark in accordance with the Trademarks Act Cap 217 (hereinafter called Cap. 217) and the Trademark Rules SI 217-1 (hereinafter called the Rules). He referred to sections 19 (1) and 20 (1) of Cap. 217 and rule 42 (1) of the Rules which require that the application should be made and advertised in the Gazette while rule 46 and 47 provide for opposition of registration of a trademark. He also referred to section 21 (1) (b) of Cap. 217 which provides that when a trademark is registered it shall be registered as of the date of the application for registration and that date shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act to be the date of registration. To prove that the plaintiff registered the trademark in accordance with the law, counsel for the plaintiff relied on Exhibits D15, P1, D12 and P2 being the application for registration of the trademark, the Gazette in which the application was published, the ruling disposing of the opposition of registration of the trademark by Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd and the Certificate of Registration of the trademark respectively. He submitted that the allegation by DW1 that the plaintiff was requested to register the trademark in the 3rd defendant’s name is not conceivable because of the following reasons: The OEM Cooperation Agreement which was executed on 11th September 2006 by Mr. Shore on behalf of the 2nd defendant clearly states in clauses 2 and 5 that the Plaintiff is the owner of the PANASUPER trademark in Uganda.  The power of attorney executed by Mr. Shore on behalf of the 3rd defendant and in favour of the plaintiff clearly states that the plaintiff should register the PANASUPER trademark in its (plaintiff) name and for its own use.  The 2nd defendant owns trademark No. 28773- PAIR TIGER (Exhibit P7) which was registered prior to the PANASUPER trademark. 6