The Applicant was a society of professional bodies and provided life assurance and medical aid to its members. There were many authorized independent agents who marketed the Applicant's product. The Respondent was an ashort­term insurance broker. The Respondent used a trademark which very closely resembled that of the Applicant. Correspondence between the parties resulted in the Respondent re­designing the logo. The Applicant contended that the new logo still resembled its trademark and sought an interdict preventing the Respondent from infringing its rights in respect of its registered trademark and restraining the Respondent from passing­off its services as those of the Applicant. The issue before the Court was whether the Respondent's new logo was likely to deceive or cause confusion. In the instant case, the parties were resident within the jurisdiction of the Court and the alleged infringement had also occurred within its jurisdiction. The Court accordingly held that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and the Respondent's preliminary objection was dismissed. On the facts of the case, the Court held that the Respondent's logo would cause deception and confusion, and granted the interdict with costs including the costs of employing two counsel.