protection with the knowledge of the manufacturer‟s existence and without the consent of the manufacturer. Thirdly, that the Applicant is not a lawful authorised agent of the manufacturer. There is no explicit mention of the trademark in question. However implicit is the suggestion that the two parties were dealing in the same goods. In a further supplementary affidavit in reply dated 9th December, 2016 he deposed and attached letters of appointment. The letter of appointment deal with authority to deal in the "Purple Moon" blankets. Secondly, the Respondent attached certificate of incorporation of the Respondent indicating that it was incorporated on 25th September, 2008. Again the Respondent attached a letter from JIANSGU Ouman Textile Technology Ltd which indicates that it is the manufacturer of Purple Moon Blankets and they sell Blankets to the Respondent and they partnered with the Respondent since April 2016. A careful analysis of the controversy clearly indicates that it is about blankets known as "Purple Moon" among other matters. The Applicant‟s application is clearly about its registered trademark. The Respondent's defence inter alia is that it had prior use continuously of the trademark. The issue of whether the trademark in question is the trademark is obscured by reference to section 41 of the Trademarks Act 2010. As we have noted above, section 36 (1) of the Trademarks Act 2010 confers upon the registered owner of the trademark exclusive right of use subject to sections 24 and 41 of the Trademarks Act. “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 (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 of the Trademarks Act obviously deals with trademarks which nearly resemble or are identical. The averment of the Respondent that the trademarks are not identical puts it out of the purview of section 41 of the Trademarks Act 2010. At the same time, the Respondent asserts that it is the same goods or dealing with resembling marks. The question of continuous usage only Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 15