In reply to this issue, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is challenging the Applicant's ownership and registration of the alleged trademark and replied to the Applicant's submissions as follows; The Applicant in the first place did not follow the laid procedures of registration of the said trademark which includes gazetting of the trademark as required under section 17 of the Trademarks Act 2010. The Applicant did not produce any evidence of the gazette despite the fact that the Respondent raised it as a point of law as such the Applicant cannot allege to be the lawful registered owners of the said trademark. The Applicant alleges to have registered their trademark on 14/6/2016 which is way after the Respondent had been dealing in blankets bearing the logo "Z moon purple moon" for eight (8) years with the authority from Luoyang City Guanlinlide Blanket Factory the registered owners of "Z moon Purple moon" trademark; and manufacturers of the said blankets as well as Bingling enterprises Limited and JIANSGU Ouma Textile Technology Co. Ltd who are agents of the manufacturer. Section 36 of the Trademarks Act 2010 provides for exclusive right of use of a trademark in relation to goods subject to prior use just as in the case of the Respondent as established under Section 41 of the Trademarks Act 2010. The Respondent‟s Counsel submitted that the fact of prior use of "Z moon purple moon" trademark is 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. Section 41 (a) of the Trademarks Act 2010 is to the effect that the owner or registered user of a registered trademark shall not interfere with or restrain the use by a person of a trademark identical with or nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services; to which that person or a predecessor in title has continuously used that trademark from the date before the use of the trademark in relation to those goods or services by the owner or predecessor in title. Counsel submitted that the Respondent got authority to use the registered trademark "Z moon purple moon" which is nearly resembling the Applicant's registered trademark "Z moon" before the Applicant's trademark was registered in Uganda. However, the Applicant's registered trademark "Z moon" is a different trademark from the Respondent's trademark "z moon Purplemoon" under part A of the trademarks Act 2010. As such the Respondent should not be stopped from using the same trademark as the first recognized user before the Applicant. In rejoinder to this issue, learned Counsel for the Applicant reiterated its earlier submissions and in reply to the Respondent's submissions, the Applicant further submits as follows; Consequently it is not in dispute that the Applicant was issued a Certificate of Registration of the said Trademark per Paragraph 4 (a) of the Plaint, Paragraph 3 of the Affidavit in support of the Application for a Temporary Injunction, Paragraph 2 of the Affidavit in Rejoinder and the Supplementary Affidavit in Rejoinder and Page 6, of the Counterclaim, Paragraph VI. He contended that the issuance of the certificate of registration for the Applicant‟s trademark is Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~ *&*$$$# xtra+ maximum735securityx 2017 style 7