an extract from the New Vision newspaper (A Uganda Daily) of 27 June 2014 showing confusion and association of the opponent‘s marks. As far as the attached affidavit of Senyondwa Andrew Tendo is concerned, he deposes that sometime in August 2014 and in the village Mall Bugolobi he entered Java coffee & tea thinking that it was part of the Cafe Javas outlets. That it was the name "Java" that led him to think that the Java coffee & tea was a branch or sister outlet of the Respondent. On asking one of the waiters to verify whether the two are related he was informed that Cafe Javas and Java coffee & tea are two different entities and not related at all. He was disappointed and deposes that the proposed name of the Appellant was likely to create confusion just like what had happened to him. On the other hand the New Vision extract comes under the title "Food Review" reviewed by one Rita. The article is of 27 June 2014. It purports to associate the Bugolobi restaurant services of the Applicant with that of the Respondent‘s other branches other than with the Appellant's branches in Nairobi. I noted that this review came after the affidavit in the counter statement of the Appellant by Kevin Ashley of 20 April 2014. The dispute was already before the Registrar of Trademarks by the time the article was written. It is based on an article by one Rita who recounts her experience and recommends the place. She thought it was one of the outlets of the Respondent. I have carefully considered the grounds of the appeal and the submissions of both Counsels as well as the decision of the Assistant Registrar. The controversy in this appeal relates in the final analysis to the likelihood of confusion. The gist of the ruling of the Registrar of Trademarks is that registration of the Appellants trademark would cause a likelihood of confusion. The decision did not rest in a substantial way on the registrability of the Appellant‘s Trademark except in relation to the earlier registration of the Respondent‘s Trademark. I have considered the submissions on how capability to distinguish is assessed and how likelihood of confusion according to several judicial precedents relied on. I have also considered submissions based on the principles for assessing capability to distinguish. For the moment there is no need for me to consider these precedents and grounds in the appeal as I have to deal with a more basic question here in below.