between the parties. The ruling was to the effect that the Appellant could reformulate its grounds of appeal provided the substance of the grounds in the notice of motion is maintained. In the premises the Appellants‘ Counsel merged arguments under grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the following heads of argument: 1.4.1 The Assistant Registrar's failure properly to compare the respective signs and marks, and specifically his failure to compare them (a) aurally at all, and (b) conceptually as a whole; 1.4.2 The Assistant Registrar‘s error in treating the Appellant‘s trademarks and trademark numbers 40612, 47765, 47766 and 47767 'Cafe Javas' ("the Respondent‘s trademarks") as mere word marks; 1.4.3 The Assistant Registrars failure to hold that the word 'Java' was descriptive and either not distinctive or of low distinctiveness in relation to the services the subject of the application and failure properly to address the fact that the word 'Java' had therefore correctly been disclaimed; 1.4.4 The Assistant Registrar‘s failure to find that there was no material similarity between the Appellant‘s mark and the Respondents trademarks that would lead to likelihood of deception and/or likelihood of confusion within the average consumer of the respective goods and services covered by the Appellant‘s trademarks and the Respondent‘s trademarks; 1.4.5 The Assistant Registrar‘s erroneous consideration of irrelevant matters when assessing whether there was a likelihood of confusion, and in particular erroneously giving any weight to the "factual evidence of confusion" and the similarity in the getup of the actual premises and businesses operated by the Appellant and the Respondent respectively; and 1.4.6 The Assistant Registrar‘s erroneous reliance on an evaluation of inadmissible evidence, thereby leading to the wrongful refusal of registration of the Appellant's trademarks. The Appellant's Counsel submitted that an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks is to be allowed where it is shown that the Registrar had committed a distinct and material error of law, principle or evaluation, and where there has been an improper exercise of discretionary powers.