demonstrate the phonetics of the two competing trademarks. The Appellant‘s Counsel submitted that the Assistant Registrar failed to find that the respective marks did not resemble each other aurally or phonetically Conceptual comparison The Appellant‘s Counsel further contended that the Assistant Registrar held that there were some conceptual similarities in the word 'Java' in the dominating element. However this was an error because the key starting point is not mere word marks. The marks should be viewed as a whole and not by reference to one element. In other words all the words have to be considered together. The Appellants Counsel further criticises the Assistant Registrar for considering both word marks to contain additional matter and therefore not being distinctive incident considering the whole trademark. He contended that the Assistant Registrar completely ignore the visual images which contributed to the conceptual meaning of each of the respective marks. Furthermore the Assistant Registrar observed that the words "Nairobi", "house" and "coffee and tea" are all subject to disclaims because they are all, one in the provision of specified services or otherwise not distinctive. From those premises he held that it is the word "Java" which gives the Appellant‘s mark the capability/adaptability to distinguish, and the word "Java" in the application was unnecessarily disclaimed. The Assistant Registrar failed to observe the inconsistency of the finding that the word "Java" is also at least as common as "Nairobi" and "house" in relation to such services and "Java" was also disclaimed by the Appellant and yet the Assistant Registrar held that the word "Java" is a distinctive word. The Appellants Counsel further submitted on the following issues: The Assistant Registrar's failure to hold that the word "Java" was descriptive and either not distinctive or of low distinctiveness in relation to the services, the subject matter of the application and his failure properly to address the fact that the word had therefore correctly been disclaimed. Secondly the Assistant Registrar's failure to find that there was no material similarity between the Appellant‘s Mark and the Respondent‘s trademark.