The applicants and the first two respondents were all businesses whose names contained the word "Value". The applicants sought a final interdict preventing the respondents from using the trademark "Value". The case related essentially to an alleged passing off of the first respondent's services as those of the applicants. Held ­ Case law explains that passing off is a wrong consisting of a false representation made by a trader to members of the purchasing public that the enterprise, goods or services of a rival trader either belong to him or are connected, in the course of trade, with his own enterprise, goods or services. To be actionable, the passing off must erode the plaintiff's goodwill. There are two basic requirements to be proved in such an action. The first is the plaintiff's reputation in relation to the symbol which epitomizes his product. The second requirement is deception or confusion, on the part of a significant segment of the buying public, caused by the conduct of the defendant, as to the origin of the product or a trade connection with the defendant, and which would likely have an influence on their decision to procure it. The main element in a plaintiff's goodwill is its reputation. Therefore, the applicants bore the onus of establishing their reputation in the mark "Value" as at the relevant date. The issue was whether applicants had such a reputation when the first respondent started his business in the relevant region. The Court found that the word"value" performed a descriptive function in the name of each of the businesses in this case. It was not in any way distinctive of either of the businesses nor was it characteristic of the goods or services in respect of which it was used. The evidence adduced by the applicants did not establish that a substantial number of people regarded the word "value" as distinctive of the applicants' business. In a consequence of the above, the applicants were unable to establish their reputation relating to the use of the word "value". There was also recourse for the applicants as far as trademark infringement was concerned. Consequently, the application was dismissed