The Appellant's Counsel further contended that the Assistant Registrar erred in relying on extrinsic evidence relating to a passing off claim which was not relevant to proceedings concerning application for entry onto the trademarks register. He submitted that the legal question to be answered in a trademark registration and opposition proceeding is different from the legal questions to be answered in a passing off claim. In opposition proceedings against the registration of a trademark the question to be answered relates to similarity of the registered Mark to that sought to be registered. The Appellants Counsel further submitted on the similarity of the getup of the parties and respective establishments. The Assistant Registrar took into account similarity in the getup of the establishments operated by the Appellant and the Respondent as being relevant surrounding circumstances which would lead to a likelihood of confusion. In particular he considered the similarity of the decor, the sitting arrangements, menus and standard of service. He submitted that it was an error of law to consider extrinsic science/marks such as associated advertising materials for packaging which may cause confusion. He further submitted that the circumstances the Registrar took into account were relevant to a passing off claims and not opposition to the registration of a trademark. Finally the Appellant‘s Counsel contended that the Registrar heavily relied on the views of two individuals whose views were not representative of potential consumers. In conclusion the Appellants Counsel submitted that the Registrar committed distinct at the material errors in law and principle and evaluation team:  Failing properly to compare the Appellants trademark and the Respondents trademarks, and specifically in failing to compare them (a) aurally at all; and (b) conceptually as a whole;  Wrongly determining the Appellant‘s trademarks and the Respondents trademarks are each mere word marks.  Failing to hold that the word "Java" was descriptive, and either not distinctive all of low distinctiveness in relation to the services, the subject of the application, and failing properly to address the fact that the word "Java" was therefore correctly disclaimed and qualifies for registration under section 19 and 26 of the Trademarks Act 2010.