trademark. They were authorised to deal in "Purple Moon" blankets. In Annexure "C2" JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD claim to be the manufacturers of Purple Moon blankets and they sell the blankets to Numaa Industries in Uganda. Finally in the affidavit deposed to on 1st March, 2017 by Muqtar Ali Zafar and particularly paragraph 4 thereof it is deposed as follows: “That in response to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Applicants affidavit in rejoinder, I am informed by my lawyers which information I verily believe to be true that upon acquiring certificates of translation from Makerere University, the owner of the trademark in question is LUOYANG CITY GUANLINLIDE BLANKET FACTORY and neither Linyi Grene Industry & Trading Co. Ltd nor PURPLE MOON TRADING LLC of Shouq Al Kabeer Street, Deira Dubai, UAE as alleged by the Applicant. (Attached is a copy of the translation and its attachment marked 'B' and 'C' respectively.)" In paragraph 5 he deposed that on the basis of information of his lawyers, the Applicant cannot seek protection from infringement of a Mark that is no authority from the owner of the Mark to register or use the same. It is clearly averred that the Respondents authority is derived from two companies namely a letter from JIANSGU OUMAN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD which is attached to paragraph 5 (iii) of the counterclaim and annexure B2 is a letter from Bingling Enterprises Ltd where it is written that they authorised the Respondent to sell "Purple Moon" blankets all over Uganda. Neither of those persons is LUOYANG CITY GUANLINLIDE BLANKET FACTORY who is alleged to be the trademark owner. Notwithstanding the issue as to the extent of the Respondents authority as to whether it covers a contest as to any trademark, it is clearly the Respondent‟s evidence that it is not an agent of LUOYANG CITY GUANLINLIDE BLANKET FACTORY which is the alleged trademark owner. On what authority would it challenge the Applicant anyway? The judgment of Hon. Lady Justice Hellen Obura in TECNO Telecom Ltd vs. Kigalo Investments Ltd HCMC No. 0017 of 2011 concerned inter alia authority of a representative of a trademark owner in Uganda. In that case an application was brought under section 45 and 46 of the Trademarks Act 2010 to have the mark TECNO which had been registered in Uganda removed from the register on the ground of proof of the registration of that mark in a country of origin. The Applicant was an attorney of TECNO Telecom Ltd and dealt in phones. The Applicant was an appointed agent in Uganda of the firm registered in Hong Kong. They dealt in a phone called TECNO and registered the name as a trademark. On the question of locus standi the Hon Judge held that the Applicant was an aggrieved party who can bring an action under sections 45 and 46 of the Trademarks Act 2010 because the Applicant demonstrated that it is the registered owner of the trademark TECNO and it manufactures and deals in TECNO phones in Hong Kong, China. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 20