 Taking into account irrelevant matters and relying on inadmissible evidence when assessing whether there was a likelihood of confusion, thereby arriving at the wrong conclusion that confusion exists. The question for consideration is whether the Appellant argued new grounds of appeal in the submissions. The registration of a trademark is made under section 12 of the Trademarks Act 2010. Section 12 (2) prescribes that an objection to an application for registration which is made by notice shall be in the prescribed manner and include a statement of the grounds of objection. A person aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar on the objection may appeal to the court in the prescribed form. On the hearing of the appeal, any party may with the special leave of the court bring further material for consideration of the court. However section 12 (9) of the Trademarks Act 2010 provides that in an appeal under the section, no further grounds of objection to the registration of a trademark shall be allowed to be taken. The section expressly refers to and forbids further grounds of objection to the application for registration. It envisages an appeal from a decision allowing registration of trademark after objection proceedings. In this case the objection of the Respondent to the Appellant‘s application was upheld. The Appellant had applied for registration which has been refused and appealed the decision refusing its registration in Uganda. In this appeal therefore the court is considering grounds of objection to the decision refusing registration of the Appellant‘s trademark rather than an appeal from a decision allowing registration to the grievance of an objector. What is forbidden by section 12 (9) of the Trademarks Act 2010 are arguments on further grounds of objection to the application for registration in addition to the grounds argued and considered before the Registrar. The appeal is brought under section 66 of the Trademarks Act which gives the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The Chief Justice is required under section 67 in consultation with the Attorney General to make rules as to the practice and procedure to be observed in respect of any jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court. The question of procedure was exhaustively considered in Miscellaneous Application Number 518 of 2015, an interlocutory application in this appeal. In that application the Appellant had sought to amend the grounds in the notice of motion and the application was refused when I held inter alia that: