I have carefully considered the ruling of the Registrar. He compared the Applicants Mark "Nairobi Java House, Coffee & Tea" as well as "Java House Coffee & tea". He held that in the middle is a devise of a face in a red sun with a yellow background. The opponent‘s Mark is registered in class 43 has the stylised words "Cafe" and "Java" with the word "Cafe" in black colour and the word "Java" in Orange with a devise of a smoking (steaming) cup over the right-hand corner of the word "Java". The opponents Mark was registered from 2 July 2013. He held that visually the marks do not resemble. He further held that there were some conceptual similarities as both marks have the dominating element of the word "Java". He considered the statutory declaration of the Respondent‘s Finance Manager Mr Mohideen Mohammed whose evidence is that customers refer to the Respondent‘s restaurants as "Java". He further observed that there is no evidence of this. He held that he was inclined to believe that it is very probable cause of the overshadowing impact of the word "Java". The Assistant Registrar also held that both marks contain additional words which are not distinctive words. The word "Cafe", "Nairobi", "Java" and "house" as well as "coffee & tea" were disclaimed. It was unnecessary to disclaim the word "Java" and this was based on the issue of whether it is matter common to the trade or provision of services or otherwise of a non – distinctive character in terms of section 26 (1) (b) of the Trademarks Act 2010 . He had found that the word Java was not common to the trade. It was the use of the word "Java" in combination with the other words that gave distinctiveness. The word Java maintained a "standout role" in the Applicant‘s composite mark as well as that of the Respondent. He concluded that there is likelihood that the Applicant‘s trademark will be considered that of the Respondent. It is my finding that the entire finding of the registrar is grounded on his decision on the word ―Java‖ which word is found in the Respondents trade Mark ―Javas‖ and ―Cafe Javas‖. I have further noted that the conclusion was made is related to the evidence of Mohideen and one Senyondwa who both deposed statutory declaration's in opposition to the application of the Appellant. The related question is whether this evidence was sufficient for the finding that people were confused by the two marks considered in this dispute to sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion. This would resolve grounds 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the grounds of appeal. To