submissions amounting to about eight pages which do not need to be reproduced in this
judgment.
Judgment
I have carefully considered the appeal and the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of motion.
For emphasis the grounds of appeal are reproduced hereunder as follows:
1. The Registrar of Trademarks erred in law and fact when he failed to properly evaluate the
evidence on record leading to a distinct and material error in refusing registration of the
Appellant's trademarks.
2. The Registrar of Trademarks ("the Registrar ") committed a distinct and material error of
evaluation and principle in finding that the word 'Java' is not a common English noun that
is synonymous with the business of coffee shops and restaurants.
3. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and
principle in not properly construing the relationship between the dictionary meaning of
the word 'Java' and the commercial usage of the word 'Java'.
4. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and
principle in failing to recognise that the Appellant seeks to use the word 'Java' in the
course of trade in a disclaimed and non-exclusive manner.
5. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and
principle in finding that a likelihood of confusion would exist as to the source of origin of
the services provided by the Appellant and Respondent.
6. The Registrar of Trademarks committed a distinct and material error of evaluation and
principle in formulating a narrow construction of the reasonable consumer test, and
resultantly arrived at the erroneous conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists.