"Grounds of objection challenge the decision of the Registrar. For that matter another ground of objection cannot be entertained without the leave of court obtained as stipulated under Order 43 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules." It was my holding that new grounds of appeal cannot be argued without the leave of court. Having considered the submissions of the Appellant's Counsel the question is whether there are any new grounds of appeal in the submissions? Secondly the issue is whether the Respondent‘s defence has been prejudiced thereby. Ground 1 of the notice of motion is so wide to the extent that it provides that 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. What was the error in law and fact in which the Registrar erred? In my opinion the grounds of failure to compare trademarks globally that is aurally and conceptually may fall under this ground. It is a sub issue which could be formulated underground one. Secondly ground 2 is about the word "Java" as a common English noun. The submission that the Registrar determined the trademark as mere words would also be argued under that ground. Furthermore the failure to find that the word 'Java' a descriptive word or not distinctive is a subset of ground 2 of the notice of motion. The question of disclaimer is raised in a ground 4 of the notice of motion. The likelihood of confusion is dealt with in the grounds 5 and 6 of the notice of motion. Finally in arguing about the use of inadmissible evidence or extrinsic evidence, there is no specific ground to support the arguments. However there is a general ground about evaluation of evidence. Is it sufficient to cover the arguments on inadmissible evidence? If so I do not need to consider these grounds and the objection of the Respondents Counsel in relations to the two grounds of inadmissible evidence and use of extrinsic materials may be considered on the merits. The rest of the submissions are on the face of it supported by the grounds and I will render a decision when considering the evidence on the other grounds of inadmissible evidence. Furthermore there is the issue of prejudice to the Respondent. The Respondent has had occasion to respond to the submissions and no prejudice has been occasioned by the framing of the heads of submission differently from the grounds provided the grounds or headings arise from the grounds of the notice of motion as I have noted above.