The grounds in support of the appeal are contained in the affidavit in support sworn by Mr Michael Mafabi of Messieurs Sebalu and Lule advocates and a supplementary affidavit in support sworn by Mr Kevin Ashley, Group Chief Executive Officer of the Appellant and are briefly as follows: 1. The Registrar of Trademarks erred in law and fact when he failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record leading to a distinct and material error in refusing registration of the Appellant's trademarks. 2. The Registrar of Trademarks ("the Registrar ") committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and principle in finding that the word 'Java' is not a common English noun that is synonymous with the business of coffee shops and restaurants. 3. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and principle in not properly construing the relationship between the dictionary meaning of the word 'Java' and the commercial usage of the word 'Java'. 4. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and principle in failing to recognise that the Appellant seeks to use the word 'Java' in the course of trade in a disclaimed and non-exclusive manner. 5. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and principle in finding that a likelihood of confusion would exist as to the source of origin of the services provided by the Appellant and Respondent. 6. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and principle in formulating a narrow construction of the reasonable consumer test, and resultantly arrived at the erroneous conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists. 7. The Registrar of Trademarks exercised his discretion injudiciously in refusing the registration of Appellant's trademarks leading to a miscarriage of justice. 8. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and principle in finding that the Applicants and Respondent's trademarks are not capable of honest concurrent usage. 9. The Registrar of Trademarks failed to assess and determine that the public interest is not served when the legitimate commercial enterprise is barred from exploiting it trade descriptive, and that the use of trademarks must not be used by one entity to stifle genuine trade competition.