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 Applicant 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. I have carefully considered the pleadings as well as the submissions. The first question is whether in the submissions the Appellant‘s Counsel substituted the grounds of the appeal to the prejudice of the Respondent. The argument in objection includes the submission that the Respondent in the affidavit in the reply to the notice of motion did not have an opportunity to respond to such new grounds. The Appellant‘s Counsel submitted the summary of the grounds for overturning the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks as the Registrar:  Failing properly to compare the Appellant‘s trademark and the Respondents trademarks, and specifically in failing to compare them (a) aurally at all; and (b) conceptually as a whole;  Wrongly determining the Appellant‘s trademarks and the Respondents trademarks are each mere word marks.  Failing to hold that the word "Java" was descriptive, and either not distinctive or of low distinctiveness in relation to the services the subject of the application, and failing properly to address the fact that the word "Java" had therefore correctly been disclaimed and qualifies for registration under section 19 and 26 of the Trademarks Act 2010.  Failing to find that there was no material similarity between the Appellant‘s trademarks and the Respondents trademarks; and