It’s important to note that when considering a mark, one has to also appreciate the fact that an average consumer perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyze its various details. This position was emphasized in the case Nairobi Java House Ltd v Mandela Auto Spares Ltd HCCA 13 of 2015. The opponent insists that the words POKEMON and POKEMON as used by the applicant are arranged and presented in the same manner and order of arrangement thus making them identical. Section 25 (2) prohibits registration of such a mark as it is likely to cause confusion. The applicant in their submissions state that the opponent did not adduce evidence of consumers, franchise or agents in Uganda as to prove confusion. I take note that there is evidence to the numbers and global recognition of the opponent and being a member of Paris Convention, which Uganda is party, gives the opponent capacity to register the trademark in Uganda. Representation of Marks POKEMON POKEMON Applicants mark Opponents Mark Name only Name & Logo In line with the nature of the trademark the applicant intends to register; the question is would it cause confusion among customers? I am persuaded to believe so; the only difference in the marks is the use of letter (E) by the applicant as presented by the opponent. Visually the marks resemble and are identical, the whole mark is presented horizontally and in the same format save for the applicants and opponents mark both being in capital letters and the opponents logo having the letter E with an apostrophe. Placed side by side the marks are the same. In the case of Wagamama ltd v City Center Restaurants PLC, [1995] FSR (Ch. D) the test for likelihood of confusion was essentially practical in the sense that the court would not consider just what the marks looked like but also what they sounded like. This principle was brought out in In the case of Standard Signs Uganda Ltd v Fred Leo