is written inside and on top of a rectangular box. It is immediately followed by the devise of a sun depicted as a human face in the centre and below the word Nairobi. Thirdly this sun is followed below it by the word JAVA. After the word Java there is a dash sign below that resembles the sign ―-:-―. Thereafter there is yet below the words ―Coffee & Tea‖. The Registrar also added the colours. The colour of the sun is in red. The words coffee and tea are also in red in a yellow background. In the variation the Appellants trademark does not have the word Nairobi on top but has the words JAVA HOUSE coffee & Tea. The Respondents mark on the other hand has the words ―Cafe‘ Javas‖ with the devise of a steaming cup above the letters ―as‖ in ―Javas‖. The word ―Cafe‖ is in black while the word ―Javas‖ is in orange. The Registrar, and correctly in my view concluded that there was no visual similarity between the two marks namely that of the Appellant and that of the Respondent. His words are: ―Visually the marks do not resemble‖. In paragraph 40 of his ruling the Registrar noted some conceptual similarities because both marks have the dominating element of the word ―Java‖. He considered the statutory declaration of Mohammad Mohideen. On the question of whether customers referred to the restaurants of the Respondent as ―Javas‖ he held that there was no evidence to this effect though he held that he was inclined to believe Mohammad Mohideen on the probability that it was true because of the ―overshadowing impact of the word ―Java‖. His conclusion was that the rest of the words in the trademarks used by the parties to this appeal were not distinctive. These were the words ―Cafe‘, Nairobi, House, Coffee & Tea‖. It was the use of the word ―Java‖ in combination with the other words that gave distinctiveness to the trademarks. First of all from my holding that the word Java is an ordinarily word, that it is a geographical place in Indonesia, that it refers to coffee and computer programming language and that this word is associated with the business of trademarks, like the word ―Cafe‘‖ it can be used as a descriptive term to refer to such business in class 43 where coffee is served. On the basis of that holding, the registrar erred in law not to find that the word Java is a descriptive term as held above and properly disclaimed by the appellant. As far as likelihood of confusion is concerned there was no survey which had been conducted. The opinion of two deponents was insufficient to reach the conclusion that the registrar reached