The issues faced by the Court was whether the Appellant's secondary use of the "Idem" mark constituted"bona fide use" of the trademark as envisaged by section 27 of the Act. Further, if the answer to this issue was in the negative, then the Court had to decide to what extent, if any, was the Respondent entitled to remove the appellant's registration of the trademark. The Appellant argued that it had in fact made "bona fide use" of the trademark as outlined in section 27 of the Act, so as to entitle it to maintain its registration thereof. The appeal was therefore upheld