8 argument is that the combination of PEPPA and the single-rounded pepper and stalk device distinguishes their products from all other trade marks which might contain the element PEPPA. The case advanced is that the appellant’s trade mark is similar in that it also incorporates the two distinctive features that have been registered by the respondents, namely PEPPA and the sideview of a single rounded pepper and stalk device. [18] The gravamen of the respondents’ opposition is that the appellant simply adopted its trade mark and added the word MATES to produce the word PEPPAMATES. Echoing the full court’s reasoning, the respondents expanded their argument and submitted that because PEPPA in PEPPAMATES has the same semantic content as PEPPA in PEPPADEW, the average consumer will be struck by the common element PEPPA and the presence of the device and thus be confused and believe that the appellant’s goods are from the same or a connected source as the respondents. [19] The appellant argues that PEPPA, either on its own or in combination with others, is descriptive and easily recognisable as being derived from the word ‘pepper’ and applies to a wide range of products and services by various parties in South Africa. It argued that the respondents are not entitled to claim a monopoly in the word. It contended further that PEPPA is not an invented word but rather an adaption (or variant spelling) of the word ‘pepper’. The contention advanced was that there are various parties that had registered trade marks that include the word PEPPA and some of these trade marks had been filed and registered prior to the first respondents’ trade mark registrations. [20] The appellant argues that when regard is had to the two marks as a whole, the elements DEW and MATES distinguish the parties’ respective marks and are vastly different to each other and not likely to cause any confusion or deception. It argued that the configuration of the marks is completely different. PEPPADEW appears in a large upright rectangle whereas the appellant’s mark does not have a rectangular device. In the appellant’s mark the word PEPPAMATES is written horizontally over two