that the court does not have to heavily rely on English law bearing in mind that the principles
such as discernment of consumers and literacy levels of a mainly informed population in an
English city cannot compare to that of the Ugandan situation. He relied on the case of Glaxo
Group Ltd versus JB Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd Court of Appeal of Uganda Civil
Appeal Number 68 of 2002 where Honourable Lady Justice Mukasa Kikonyogo DCJ held that
the conditions in circumstances in Uganda are not exactly the same as pertaining to that in India.
He therefore contended that the local context was very significant to in the case of Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trades Acts and Designs) (OHIM) versus Shaker di
L Laudato & C Sas cited by the Appellant. The court while applauding the court of first
instance for taking cognizance of the Spanish people held that what needed to be considered in
likelihood of confusion is the views of part of the public in the territory where the earlier
trademark is protected. He prayed that any reference to "public", "average consumer" whenever
used in the appeal should be put in its proper context.
He submitted that real contention in the appeal is the use of the word "Javas" within the
trademark despite the attempt by the Appellant to divert its dominant effect. In the Appellant's
Counsel's submissions before the Registrar of Trademarks he wrote that fundamentally the basis
of the objection is the registration and use by the Applicant of the word Java in the Applicant‘s
trademarks. Had the Appellant commenced a similar business as carried on by the opponent by
any other name, there would be no opposition to the Mark. The Respondent‘s Counsel submitted
that the solution would be for the Appellant to carry on similar business by any other name.
Secondly the matter is about general principles in determining likelihood of confusion. He
contends that the Registrar was very much alive to the principles and these principles guided his
findings. The Registrar did not have to repeat every aspect of the principles. With regard to the
case of the Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd versus Asda stores Ltd (supra) the
principles set out in the case are the same the Registrar set out in his ruling. However the
Appellant abridged the principles and left out certain key considerations which the Respondents
Counsel set out in the written submissions. There is no need to repeat them here.
He argued that the omitted parts are significant in that the word Java is the Respondent‘s
trademark and is an element that retains an independent distinctive role. A lesser degree of
similarity between the goods and services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity