6 [13] Although Adcock relied on the wider enquiry in its notice of application for leave to appeal it indicated in its heads of argument in this court that it was not proceeding on this ground. However, the approach to be taken in determining the question whether a trade mark is precluded from registration by s 10(12) or s 10(14) is a matter of law. [14] Section 10(14) prohibits the registration of 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’. [15] The trade marks ZEMAX and ZETOMAX were both registered in class 5 in respect of partly the same goods. The registration of neither was limited to pharmaceutical preparations, least of all prescription medicines. Section 10(14) prohibits the registration of a mark that is so similar to a registered trade mark belonging to a different proprietor that the use thereof in relation to goods or services in respect of which it is or 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. The class in respect of which ZEMAX is registered is not limited to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’ but includes a host of other goods. In particular, a pharmaceutical preparation under that name could be made available to the public otherwise than on the basis of a prescription by a medical practitioner. It was stated in Bristol Laboratories Inc v Ciba Ltd:5 ‘The appellant has applied for the registration of his mark in respect of all goods in Class 3. It could therefore place on the market a preparation which might also be readily procurable without prescription. It may be that the goods in respect of which it intends to use the mark . 5 Bristol Laboratories Inc v Ciba Ltd 1960 (1) SA 864 (A) at 871C-E. Section 17(1) of the Trade Marks Act 62 of 1963, the precursor of s 10(14), provided: ‘Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), no trade mark shall be registered if it so resembles a trade mark belonging to a different proprietor and already on the register that the use of both such trade marks in relation to goods or services in respect of which they are sought to be registered, and registered, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.’ See G C Webster and N S Page Webster and Page South African Law of Trade Marks, Unlawful Competition and Trading Styles (1997) 4 ed by C E Webster and G E Morley paras 6.6.5 and 6.12 for a comparison of the two sections.