and drink services. He established as a matter of fact from his own research that the word "Java" is used by all kinds of enterprises including restaurants. He concluded that in the Internet such evidence submitted by the Applicant only showed that different restaurant enterprises are using the word "Java" in their trademark representations. This was to distinguish the services not to describe them. The fact that the Mark described coffee that is served in certain restaurants is not in itself sufficient to render the Mark descriptive of the services themselves. The word "Java" is therefore not a generic reference to coffee shops or restaurants. The Registrar also considered the similarity of trademarks under section 25 (2) of the Trademarks Act 2010 which section forbids registration of a trademark that is identical or nearly resembles a trademark belonging to a different owner already on the register in respect of the same services, the same description of services or goods or a description of goods which are associated with those services or services of the description. In the course of submissions in this appeal, Counsels dwelt on the principles for assessment of trademarks for purposes of considering whether they can distinguish from others. Among other matters which formed the subject matter of the appeal is whether the holding by the Registrar that the word "Java" is not descriptive of services of trade in food and drink and is not a word commonly used in the provision of such services in Uganda, is erroneous. This issue addresses ground 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion which are in other words the grounds of appeal. Identical or resembling trademarks with regard to the same services, description of services or associated goods and services should not be registered under section 26 or upon the discretion of the Registrar under section 27 of the Trademarks Act respectively. On the ground that the word "Java" is not descriptive of services of trade in food and drink, it is not a word commonly used in the provision of the specified services in Uganda. The Registrar also dealt with the likelihood of confusion on the ground that the Appellant's trademark nearly resembles that of the opponent/Respondent as a matter of fact based on comparisons. Issues were raised as to whether the materials before the Registrar were sufficient to come to a conclusion as to whether the proposed Mark was likely to be confusing to consumers and the principles for determining that.