between the marks and vice versa. He contended that the principle of offsetting a lesser similarity between marks is pivotal to this case. The Respondent‘s Counsel further submitted that there is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a highly distinctive character either per se or because of the use that has been made of it. For emphasis the Respondent has used the Javas trademark for over six years in Uganda in five different locations in Kampala and one in Entebbe. There is no evidence that in Uganda anyone else had used the word Cafe Javas in relation to the provision of foods and drinks as envisaged by section 43 of the Trademarks Act. Counsel further relied on the case of Specsavers (supra) for the holding that the court must consider the matter from the perspective of the average consumer of the goods or services in question and must take into account all circumstances of that use likely to operate in that average consumer's mind in considering the sign and the impression it is likely to make on him. The sign should not be considered out of context. Furthermore the reputation of an earlier mark is to be taken into account when determining a likelihood of confusion. In particular the more distinctive the earlier Mark the greater the risk of confusion. In the premises the Respondents undisputed six years reputation for 5 outlets in Kampala and 1 in Entebbe warrants a broader protection on account of its distinctiveness. Counsel further submitted that the emphasis on taking into account the distinctive and dominant features and category of goods and services in question and the circumstances in which they are marked while applying the global test runs through all the authorities cited. Furthermore section 16 (2) of the Trademarks Act enjoined the Registrar of Trademarks to admit evidence of business usage in such actions and this was done. The Respondent‘s Counsel submitted that the above overview applies widely to the appeal. The first two grounds argued together by the Appellant are not part of the grounds of appeal. They raise issues of aural and conceptual comparison as a whole and further that the Registrar treated the trademark as mere word marks. Contrary to the submission the Registrar set out the test comprehensively in paragraph 34 of the ruling and in particular the Registrar was alive to the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks. Furthermore the Appellant did not raise the pronunciation of the mark before the Registrar as they have done in this appeal. The fact that the