conclusive evidence of compliance with the procedures as mandated in law unless rebutted by the Respondent which the Respondent has failed to do. Secondly, learned Counsel submitted that the allegation by the Respondent that the application omitted to gazette the application for the registration of the Applicant's trademark is baseless and an afterthought. The said allegation was never pleaded in the Respondent's statement of Defence and Counter Claim. The minimum prudence required of the Respondent would at least entail the submission of a letter from the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (Registrar of Trademarks) confirming the non-compliance by the Applicant or to seek de-registration of the Applicant's mark in a separate suit. This burden of proof as mandated under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 has not been discharged by the Respondent. It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence of authority extended to the Respondent by LUOYANG CITY GUANLlNLlDE BLANKET FACTORY. On the contrary, the authority extended to the Respondent is from BINGLING ENTERPRISES LIMITED & JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LIMITED (Chinese companies), which companies are not the Registered Owners of the said trademark in China. The Respondent's allegation of having dealt in the said goods for 8 years is not disclosed in the pleading of the Respondent. On the contrary, the Respondent in Paragraph 4 (b) of the Written Statement of Defence and Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit in Reply confirms having dealt in the said goods for different and contradicting time frames. The date of authorization in the Agency letter from Bingling Enterprises Limited is from 20 th April, 2012 and that from JIANSGU Ouman Textile Technology Co. Limited is from April, 2016 which dates are in contradiction with the above allegation. No evidence to prove the alleged prior use has been adduced by the Respondent. More so given, that the Respondent has never challenged the Applicant's registration of the said trademark or applied for de-registration of the same. The Applicant‟s Counsel submitted that the issue in dispute is not about the similarity of the marks but the unauthorized usage of the Applicant's trademark by the Respondent which fact is not rebutted as portrayed in paragraph 4 (c) of the Written statement of Defence and Paragraph 5 (iii) of the Counter Claim; wherein the Respondent confirms dealing in the impugned goods and further confirms storing the said goods bearing the Applicant's Trademark in Paragraph 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit 2. He further submitted that the Applicant's registration of the said trademark confers exclusive rights to the Applicant and the Respondent has not adduced any evidence to justify its unauthorized use of the Applicant's Trademark. The material contradictions in the evidence of the Respondent draw this Honourable Court to the one conclusion that is the evidence adduced by the Respondent cannot be relied upon by Court. "He who comes to equity must come with clean hands" therefore Court must permanently restrain the Respondent from using the Applicant‟s trademark for the Respondent‟s benefit. ISSUE 2: Whether the Respondent has Locus Standi to challenge the Applicant's Registration of the said trademark? Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 8