On this issue the Respondent‘s Counsel submitted that the Appellant‘s submissions on disclaimer are not tenable. There is an undisputed fact that the Respondent is the registered owner of Cafejavas and javas trademarks and has been running the restaurant business under that mark in class 43 for over six years in Kampala and Entebbe. These outlets are commonly referred to as Javas. The word Java incorporated in the Appellant‘s mark with an intention to use it for similar services as that of the Respondent was right to be rejected through the exercise of the Registrar's discretion. The Appellant did not adduce any evidence upon which the Registrar or any court can rely on to hold and conclude that the word "Java" is descriptive of services of drink and food or cafe. The fallacy of descriptiveness of the word in issue rules out application of section 10 (4), 19 and 26 of the Trademarks Act 2010. The Appellant has further registered the same trademark in Kenya with no disclaimer. The Appellants arguments and therefore meant to abuse the process in Uganda. Consideration of irrelevant matters: On this ground of the Respondent‘s Counsel submitted that the Registrar followed the Trademarks Act including the notion and purpose of trademarks is defined and also applied the principles. Secondly the Registrar did not make an error in relying on the evidence of two witnesses that consumers could be misled that the Appellant's outlet was economically linked to the Respondent. The Registrar cautioned himself that there were only two witnesses and however went ahead to exercise its discretion after believing them. The Registrar cautiously and fairly considered all the evidence on record. This submission that the registered relied on the New Vision newspaper report is diversionary and misconstrued. This is because the witness did not attribute his belief in the confusion referred to in the newspaper article. On the use of extrinsic evidence, the Respondent‘s Counsel contends that the Appellant erroneously faults the Registrar for relying on what he defined as extrinsic evidence. The key principles in determining the likelihood of confusion as demonstrated by the authorities include having regard to all surrounding circumstances. Secondly he considered similarity of service. Thirdly he considered the distinctive character of the mark because of the use that has been made