have to revert to the meaning of „distinctive‟ when I come to deal with the second ground of the respondents‟ attack on the registration of the marks; but for the purpose of dealing with the main point in this appeal I will assume that the requirement of distinctiveness is satisfied.” As we have noted the said trade mark was registered in part “A”. Under section 9 of the Trademarks Act, Act 17 of 2010 it is a requirement for registration in part “A” for the trademark to consist of at least one of the variables listed under the section. This includes in section 9 (c) “an invented word or invented words”. This section reproduces section 11 (1) (c) of the repealed Trade Marks Act cap 217 2000 laws of Uganda. The side notes of both the new section and the repealed section provide and I quote: “distinctiveness requisite for registration under part A”. Section 9 (d) of the Trademarks Act 2010 also provides that the mark may consist of: “a word or words having no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods, and not being in accordance to its ordinary signification a geographical name or surname”. This is in pari materia with section 11 (1) (d) of the repealed Trade Marks Act cap 217. It follows that the registered trademark No. 20189 in the names of Britania Cosmetics Ltd registered a combination of the words with exclusivity given to the combination of words “Britania Nice & Lovely.” The trade mark certificate attached does not indicate what colour it is. It is a black and white photocopy and the colour combination cannot be ascertained. Prima facie the get up other than the combination of words are not part of the registered mark in dispute. In the absence of a copy of the coloured picture or photo of the trade mark lodged with the Registrar of Trademarks which trademark is the subject of assignment to the applicant, it cannot be said that any particular get – up comprising of any combination of colours or other designs such as the baby, or other designs and colours are part of the registered trade mark relied on by the applicant. To make matters worse, annexure “G” to the supplementary affidavit by Charles Njenga in further support of the applicant‟s application displays a series of different coloured products of the applicant. The colour combination for each product is relatively different. There are also different pictures involved for different products of the applicant. Which of them was the registered trade dress or get – up? In other words the court cannot rely on a black and white photocopy of a trademark where there are questions of colour and pictures to be determined as far as get up or trade dress is concerned. Section 4 of the repealed Trade Marks Act cap 217 provides that: “no person shall be entitled to institute any proceedings to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trademark, but nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods as the goods of another person or the remedies in respect of those rights of action.” This provision is reacted in two provisions of the new Act namely sections 34 and 35 of the Trademarks Act 2010 which provide: