7  The 3rd defendant owns trademark No.30972-POWER FLASH (Exhibit P8) which was registered after the PANASUPER trademark.  The 2nd and 3rd defendants were aware of the dispute between the plaintiff and Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. Ltd. Counsel for the plaintiff referred to the definition of fraud as set out in the case of Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank &OrsSCCA No. 04 of 2006 as follows:“An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it is by direct falsehood or innuendo by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture…” Counsel submitted that the plaintiff cannot be said to have registered the trademark fraudulently because it obtained the trademark from the 3rd defendant and registered it in accordance with the provisions of Cap. 217 & the Rules and it is inconceivable that the plaintiff was requested to register the trademark in the 3rd defendant’s name. In reply, the defendants’ counsels referred to the definition of the terms fraud and fraudulent as per Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition at Page 660 and also referred to the case of Kampala Bottlers Ltd vs Domanico (U) Ltd (S.C Civil Appeal No 22/92) where the appellate court accepted the definition of fraud as meaning actual fraud or some act of dishonesty. The defendants’ counsels also referred to the cases of Uganda Posts and Telecommunications vs Lutaaya SCCA No. 36 of 1995, Sejaka Nalima vs Rebbecca Musoke Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985 and Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient bank & Ors SCCA No. 04 of 2006 where the Courts were 7