Learned counsel further submitted on the test of whether if the injunction is not granted the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. Counsel argued that there is no evidence before court proving that if injunction is not granted the applicant would suffer irreparable damage. Referring to paragraph 10 of affidavit in reply the respondent avers that he is doing business in Sudan and the products were brought from Sudan. He contended that the respondent has no products Uganda and this goes to the territorial jurisdiction of courts in Uganda. There is no merit in the application. The onus is on the applicant to prove irreparable injury. Referring to the case of Cut Tobacco (K) Ltd vs. BAT (K) Ltd [2001] 1 24 counsel pointed out that the Court of Appeal of Kenya held that in considering an application for a temporary injunction the court should not look at it as if it is hearing the main suit. Without proof of irreparable loss the injunction should not be granted. As far as the balance of convenience is concerned, counsel contended that the respondent‟s products are in Sudan and it followed that the applicant will not suffer any inconvenience if the temporary injunction is not granted. Secondly looking at the plaint the applicant is asking for an injunction, and that is all it seeks, if the injunction is granted at this stage it would disposes of main issue in the suit. In rejoinder learned counsel for the applicant made a reply to the submissions on point of law objecting to the application which I will set out presently in my judgment. As far as the application to register the words “Nice & Soft” is concerned, counsel contended that the registrar cannot register the same because the applicant has exclusive use of the said words and is entitled to its protection. Counsel referred to the ruling in Napro (supra) where the learned judge relied on section 13 of the repealed Trademarks Act which provides that “It shall not be lawful to register as a trademark or part of a trademark any matter the use of which would, by reason of its being likely to deceive or cause confusion or otherwise, be disentitled to protection in a court of justice, or would be contrary to law or morality, or any scandalous design”. The respondents application for registration of the trademark “Nice & Soft” was gazetted on 25th February 2011 and referring to the case of Parke Davis & Co Ltd v Opa Pharmacy Ltd [1961] 1 EA 556 counsel argued that this is a question to be determined on the merits whether actually part of someone‟s trademark can be registered. As far as the contention that the respondents products have been produced for the Sudanese market is concerned, paragraph 8 of the respondent‟s affidavit which makes it clear that the product is being made for the Ugandan market and that the applicant is trying to prohibit competition. He concluded that his learned friend is not sincere. In the alternative and on the balance of convenience the respondent will not suffer any loss if a temporary injunction is granted. Counsel again invited the court compare the products and establish whether there is a similarity likely to confuse. In any case if the respondent does not produce for the Ugandan market they