The Applicant‟s Counsel submitted that the Respondent has no locus standi to challenge the Applicant's Registration of the said trademark because the Respondent is confused as to whom the manufacturer of the said goods is. As stated above, the Respondent has disclosed different entities that is, Bingling Enterprises Limited, JIANSGU Ouman Textile Technology Co. Ltd, and Luoyang City Guanlinlide Blanket Factory. Above all, none of the said manufacturers has challenged the Registration of the Applicant in Uganda as required in Law. The Respondent has not submitted any mandate from the· alleged Manufacturers permitting the Respondent to challenge the Applicant‟s registration premised on prior registration. The WSD is solely based on Bingling Enterprises Limited being the owner of the trademark yet the Respondent confirms that Luoyang City Guanlinlide Blanket Factory is the manufacturer and owner of the said Trademark in China. At the same time, the Respondent has not directly challenged the Applicant's Registration of the trademark as provided in Law nor has any manufacturer mandated the Respondent to do so. The Applicant‟s Counsel further submitted that the points of law above dispose of the main suit and prayed that judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant with Costs per Kampala Stocks Supermarket Co. Limited vs. Seven Days International Limited, Civil Suit No. 112 of 2015. In reply to this issue, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent wishes to counterclaim the Applicant‟s submission that the Applicant has no capacity to sue the Respondent. This is because the registered trademark Z moon Purplemoon is established in China and the Applicant has no authority from the registered owners to use a trademark similar to the registered owners in china or to institute this suit. Secondly, the Applicant alleges to have authority from the registered owners of the trademark Purplemoon blanket in Dubai which authority is not produced as evidence. Consequently learned Counsel contended that the Respondent has been using the blankets bearing the trademark "z moon Purplemoon" for eight (8) years prior to the Applicant registering the trademark Z moon all with the authority of the manufacturers of the blankets in China; that had also earlier registered the trademark as established in the copy of the trademark certificate attached to the supplementary affidavit 2 by Muqtar Ali Zafar marked C and B. The Respondent‟s Counsel submitted that the Applicant's later registration of the trademark Z moon and dealing in the same blankets is fraudulent and passing off on the products already sold by the Respondent who acquired a good image and market for the same which is contrary to Section 35 of the Trademarks Act 2010. Learned Counsel contended that in relation to the above, the Respondent has locus to challenge registration of the Applicant's trademark for passing off as established in paragraphs 4 (a) and (b) of the Respondent's written statement of defence and paragraphs 5 (i) and (ii) of the Respondent's counter claim. Counsel further submitted that the Respondent has locus to challenge the Applicant's trademark since the Applicant is liable for passing off the goods of the Respondent. Finally learned Counsel submitted that the Applicant equally can't enjoy exclusive use against Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 9