3 [2] The respondents opposed the registration of the appellant's trade mark in terms of s 10(14) and 10(17) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 (the Act) before the Registrar of Trade Marks (the Registrar). The Registrar transferred the matter to the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the high court). The argument proceeded on the basis that if there was no deception or confusion between the marks in this form there would be no deception or confusion where the word PEPPADEW, or the device, were used separately. The high court (Tlhapi J) upheld the respondents’ case in terms of s 10(14) of the Act. Dissatisfied with that decision, the appellant appealed to the full court (Mothle J, Molopa and Hughes JJ concurring). The full court agreed with Tlhapi J and dismissed the appeal. [3] This appeal, with the special leave of this court, concerns only the opposition in terms of s 10(14) of the Act. This section provides: ‘10. Unregisterable trade marks. – The following marks shall not be registered as trade marks or, if registered, shall, subject to the provisions of sections 3 and 70, be liable to be removed from the register: . . . . (14) subject to the provisions of section 14, a mark which is identical to a registered trade mark belonging to a different proprietor or so similar thereto that the use thereof in relation to goods or services in respect of which it is sought to be registered and which are the same as or similar to the goods or services in respect of which such trade mark is registered, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, unless the proprietor of such trade mark consents to the registration of such mark.’ [4] The respondents’ composite mark, contains a side-view of a single rounded pepper stalk and the word PEPPADEW, printed in block capitals and with a vertical orientation. They allege that the said registrations preclude the appellant’s registrations. The respondents’ composite trade mark is represented as follows: