(b) the registration of the trademark in respect of those goods or services in the name of the owner or a predecessor in title, whichever is the earlier or to object on the use being proved to that person being put on the register for that identical or nearly resembling trademark in respect of those goods or services under section 27.” Section 41 is the defence of the Respondent who claims that it has been using the trademark in issue prior to registration of the Applicant for a period of eight years. I will presently deal with that question as a matter of fact. Going back to the exclusivity granted by section 36 (1) of the Trademarks Act, the exclusivity is secured by prohibition of any use not authorised by the owner. The rights conferred by registration under section 36 (1) of the Trademarks Act is taken to be infringed according to section 36 (2) of the Trademarks Act, 2010, by a person who uses without permission of the registered owner a mark identical with or so nearly resembling it as likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to any goods of the same description. Section 36 (2) of the Trademarks Act, 2010 provides as follows: “36. Rights given by registration of goods in Part A and infringement. (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. (2) Without prejudice to the general effect of subsection (1), the right conferred by that subsection shall be taken to be infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the trademark or a registered user of the trademark uses by way of permitted use, a mark identical with or so nearly resembling it, as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to any goods of the same description where the use would result in a likelihood of confusion and in such a manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken— (a) as a trademark relating to goods; or (b) in a case in which the use of the goods or in physical relation to the goods or in any publishing circular or other publication issued to the public, as importing a reference to some person having the right as owner or as registered user of the trademark or to goods with which that person is connected in the course of trade.” The section specifically requires proof on the balance of probabilities that the infringing mark is „identical with‟ or so „nearly resembling it‟, „as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to any goods of the same description where the use would result in a likelihood of confusion and in such a manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken “as a trademark relating to goods”. The question of whether the alleged infringing mark is Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 12