be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors and the matter must be judged
through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods or services in question who is deemed to
be reasonably well-informed and presumably circumspect and observant. In the premises the
Appellant‘s Counsel contends that the average consumer is not about nationality but a legal
construct. It follows that the average consumer in Uganda being not as well informed is
irrelevant to the formulation of who the average consumer is. Where the average consumer has a
low-level of literacy, greater emphasis should be put on the visual and aural differentiation
between the sings in question rather than the word "Java".
The Appellant further submitted that the Respondent misconstrued the context in which lady
justice Mukasa Kikonyogo DCJ in Glaxo Group Ltd versus JB Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals held that the conditions and circumstances in Uganda are not being exactly the
same as in India. The observation was a specific comment on the circumstances under which the
parties to the appeal had reached an agreement in India to use the market in question and not a
decision on the nature of the average consumer or the applicable market context.
In rejoinder on evaluation of principles relevant to determining likelihood of confusion in the
relation to compensate marks.
The Appellant's Counsel reiterated earlier submissions that the Assistant Registrar misapplied the
test in his evaluation and did not conduct a global assessment visual and aural and conceptual but
proceeded to erroneously compare one element in the Appellant and Respondent's trademarks.
On the submission that in assessing the comparison tests it is legitimate to take into account the
use of the registered mark in the word Javas, the Appellant‘s Counsel submits that the
Specsavers authority is not good authority. On the contrary it requires comparison to be made of
the mark as registered against the allegedly confusing sign in the context in which the confusing
sign will be used. It is essential that the court should only have regard to the registered mark and
the sign is actually used or by analogy the Appellant‘s trademarks which it seeks to register. I
will further consider arguments on the principles of law from the authorities and not need to
make reference to the rejoinder on that matter.
As far as the grounds are concerned the Appellant‘s Counsel essentially reiterated earlier
submissions regarding the Assistant Registrar‘s errors and I will take into account the