The affidavit in support of the appeal primarily gives the facts of the dispute which will be considered from the submissions of Counsel. The appeal is supported by the affidavit of Mr Michael Mafabi and the supplementary affidavit of Mr Kevin Ashley. In the affidavit in reply to the notice of motion in opposing the grounds of appeal is the affidavit of Mr Yasin Ahmed, the Finance/Director of Mandela Auto Spares Ltd. The Respondent is the registered proprietor of trademark number 40162 registered in class 30, trademark number 47765 registered in class 21, trademark number 47766 registered in class 32, trademark number 47767 register the transfer to the and the word acronym 'Cafe Javas'. On the basis of being duly registered trademarks, the Respondent successfully opposed the application for registration by extension of the Appellants proposed trademark under the style of 'Nairobi Java house' before the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks in Uganda Registration Services Bureau for the reasons that are contained in the decision appealed against. The Respondent opposed the appeal and intends to defend the decision of the Assistant Registrar, Trademarks. The Appellant‘s sought to amend the Memorandum of Appeal in Miscellaneous Application Number 580 of 2015 and application was dismissed on 27 August 2015. The court was addressed in written submissions. In the appeal Counsel James Mukasa Sebugenyi of Messieurs Sebalu and Lule advocates represented the Appellant while Counsel Alex Rezida represented the Respondent. The Appellant's written submissions in support of the appeal is that the appeal is against the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks also referred to as the "Assistant Registrar" dated 21st of May 2015 in relation to trademark opposition proceedings filed by Mandela Auto Spares Ltd, the Respondent. The proceedings were against the registration of trademark application number 48062/2013 'Java House and Java Sun' and trademark application number 48063/2013 'Nairobi Java house' which marks are the Appellant's trademarks in the name of the Appellant. In the ruling or decision the Assistant Registrar upheld the objection of the Respondent and found that the proposed registration of the Appellant's trademarks would lead to confusion in the marketplace. The Appellant proposed to submit on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the notice of motion and proposed that the grounds 8 and 9 would not be addressed in light of the finding of the court in the ruling dated 27th of August 2015 High Court Miscellaneous Application No 580 of 2015