comes about where the goods resemble or are identical. There has to be a visual examination of the two marks. Issues number one and two therefore depend on the question of fact as to whether the trademarks in issue nearly resemble or are identical or are likely to cause confusion. None of them can be resolved without an examination of the physical marks. An examination of the mark shows that they are the same. It is a half moon sign with the middle cross with the word moon written on it and also a sign in the centre that resembles Z. Secondly, it is pertinent to examine the trademark that the Respondent intended to register. The question of whether to register a trademark or not is not initially considered by the Court but by the Registrar of Trademarks. Both parties did not address the court on the question of fact as to what happened to the objection lodged with Registrar of Trademarks concerning the application of the Respondent to register a trademark. The procedure is that the Registrar determines the objection. The notice of objection is attached as annexure D to the supplementary affidavit in reply dated 9th December 2016. Annexure “D” is dated 8th September 2016 and is form TM No. 6. In it the Applicant gave notice of objection to the Registrar of Trademarks following the advertisement of an application by the Respondent to register a trademark “Purple Moon” advertised in the gazette. The ground of the application is that the mark applied for is not distinctive. The name of the opponent is in respect of the same class of goods. The Notice of Objection is also attached as annexure C to the affidavit in reply dated 30th November 2016. Finally the Applicant‟s application in the affidavit in support of the application is to restrain sale of blankets or other goods by the Respondent bearing the Applicants registered mark. The procedure is that where the owner is registered under part "A" of the Trademarks Act 2010. He or she enjoys exclusive rights to the Trademark. It is averred that the Defendant/Respondent applied to be registered under Part A and the Applicant objected to the application. A person who claims to be the owner of the trademark used or proposed to be used by him or her shall apply under section 7 (1) of the Trademarks Act to the Registrar in the prescribed form for registration in Part A or B of the Trademarks Act. An application is published according to section 11 of the Trademarks Act 2010. Thereafter section 12 of the Trademarks Act, gives any person the right to give notice to the Registrar of objection to the registration of a mark sought to be registered. The evidence presented to court is that the Applicant objected to the Respondent‟s application. The law is quite clear that an objection is decided by the Registrar before the refusal or granting of the application to register the trademark. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar has a right of appeal to the court. Under section 16 where the application for registration of the trademark in part "A" or part "B" of the register has been accepted and the application has not been objected to the Registrar shall unless the application has been accepted in error register the trademark accordingly. In this case an objection has allegedly been made to the registration of the Respondent and the issue is pending determination if at all. The High Court is an appellate Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 16