The two issues are intertwined because one cannot be answered without the other. If the Applicant has exclusive right of use, then that right is being challenged in the counterclaim. On the other hand if the Respondent has no locus standi to challenge the Applicant‟s registration, it would reinforce the exclusivity conferred by the registration of the trademark under the Trademarks Act 2010. Section 36 (1) of the Trademarks Act 2010 provides that: “(1) Subject to sections 41 and 24, the registration before or after the commencement of this Act, of a person in Part A of the register as owner of a trademark other than a certification mark in respect of any goods shall, if valid, give or be taken to have given to that person the exclusive right to the use of the trademark in relation to those goods. A literal reading of section 36 (1) (supra) clearly uses the expression "if valid". The registration has to be valid to give or to be taken to have given that person the exclusive right to the use of the trademark in relation to the specified goods. Was the registration of the Applicant valid? Secondly, reference has to be made to sections 41 and 24 which is clearly specified as making section 36 (1) subject to the provisions. Going back to section 24 of the Trademarks Act 2010, it is provided that a bona fide use by a person of his or her own name or the name of his or her place of business or the name of the place of business of any of his or her predecessors in business shall not be affected by registration of a trademark. Secondly, the bona fide use by a person of any description of the character or quality of his or her goods or services, not being a description that is likely to be taken as importing a reference mentioned in section 36 (2) (b) or the bona fide use by a person of the description of the character or quality of his or her services, not being a description that is likely to be taken as importing a reference as mentioned in section 37 (2) (b). The Respondent's case is not one of bona fide use according to the character or quality of its goods or the quality or character of services provided. The Respondent‟s case has nothing to do with the bona fide use of his or her own name or the name of his or her place of business and therefore section 24 of the Trademarks Act is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. With reference to section 41 of the Trademarks Act 2010, it provides as follows: “41. Saving of vested rights Nothing in this Act shall entitle the owner or a registered user of a registered trademark to interfere with or restrain the use by a person of a trademark identical with or nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services in relation to which that person or a predecessor in title has continuously used that trademark from a date before— (a) the use of the trademark in relation to those goods or services by the owner or a predecessor in title; or Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 11