6 Works Software (Pty) Ltd [2013] ZASCA 158; 2013 BIP 313 (SCA) (Orange Services) para 6, it was stated that in opposition proceedings the question that falls to be decided is not how the parties use or intend to use their marks, but how they would be entitled to use them if both of them were registered; that is, how they might notionally be used. [12] In Orange Services, Nugent JA, citing the authors of Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, pointed out that the question whether there is a likelihood of confusion or deception is a question of fact and that decided cases in relation to other facts are of little assistance, save in so far as they lay down any general principle. In a later decision of this court in Roodezandt Ko-operatiewe Wynmakery Ltd v Robertson Winery (Pty) Ltd & another [2014] ZASCA 173; 2014 BIP 294 (SCA) para 5, Brand JA elaborated on the meaning of the value judgment to be made, in the context of an application to remove a trade mark from the register. The principles adumbrated by him apply with equal force to opposition proceedings. In Yuppiechef Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Yuppie Gadgets Holdings (Pty) Ltd & another 2016 ZASCA 118 [2016] ZASCA; 2016 BIP 269 (SCA) (Yuppiechef), an infringement case, Wallis JA stated that the value judgment is largely a matter of first impression and there should not be undue peering at the two marks to find similarities or differences. He cautioned that it is not sufficient for judges to say merely that their impression is that the alleged infringement mark is or is not likely to deceive or cause confusion. Judges have an obligation to explain why they hold their particular view. [13] In Compass Publishing BV v Compass Logistics Ltd [2004] EWHC 520 (Ch) at para 24 Laddie J said the following: ‘The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors. It must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods or services in question. That customer is to be taken to be reasonably well informed and reasonably circumspect and observant, but he may have to rely upon an imperfect picture or recollection of the marks. The court should factor in the recognition that the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not analyse its various details. The visual, aural and conceptual similarities of