under section 19 is an important admission by the Appellant that the Appellant‘s trademarks contained some, matter that the use of the disclaimed the matter by another party cannot without other attributes be sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion with the concerned mark. The only similarity between the Appellant's trademark and the Respondent's trademark is in the word "Java". Counsel further submitted that Part B only required the mark to be capable of distinguishing the Appellant services from those of any other persons in the course of business. When it is considered as a whole the Appellants trademark with the distinctive "Sun" devise is capable of distinguishing the services of the Appellant. The Appellants Counsel further submitted on the issue of whether the Assistant Registrar made an erroneous consideration of the relevant matters in assessing whether there was a likelihood of confusion. Secondly there was an erroneous reliance on inadmissible evidence by the Assistant Registrar. Counsel contended that the Assistant Registrar did not follow the test in Specsavers (supra) and committed a distinct error of law and principle by taking into account irrelevant matters when evaluating the possibility of a likelihood of confusion and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists. The Assistant Registrar gave evidence filed by the opposition comprising a restaurant review of the Appellant's enterprise published in the New Vision on 27 June 2014 and a declaration by one Mr Andrew Senyondwa Tendo. Both in the newspaper article and the declaration believe that one of the Appellant's establishments was a branch or sister outlet of one of the Respondent establishments. In the premises the Assistant Registrar found that the evidence filed was representative of the confusion which a reasonable member of the public would be expected to have when considering the two competing marks. The Appellants Counsel further submitted that newspaper articles are inadmissible as hearsay evidence. He relied on the Supreme Court case of Attorney General versus Major General David Tinyefuza SCCA number 1 of 1997 per Oder JSC. Furthermore he submitted that the evidence related to passing off and not a registered trademark confusion he submitted that the question of whether one word is likely to cause confusion with another is a matter upon which the judge must make up his mind and which he and he alone has to decide. He cannot abdicate the decision in that matter to witnesses before him.