registered). I doubt whether the suggestion that the respondent's mark might also fairly and normally be used in relation to other varnishes would establish infringement on respondent's part. It is not necessary , however, to express a final opinion on these points for the mark actually used by respondent in this case was applied to the same class of goods as the 41 registered mark and, in my opinion, the issue of deceptive or confusing resemblance can be decided on the basis of the actual user by both parties. I come now to compare the marks in this case, Micatex and Mikacote. Viewed side by side the marks exhibit similarities and differences. They are both trisyllabic; they both have as their first two syllables the word "mica". (Though in respondent's case this is spelt "mika", phonetically the words are identical.) On the other hand, the only similarity between the suffix "cote" and the suffix "tex" is that they are both monosyllabic. 42 As I have emphasized, however, the comparison must not be confined to a viewing of the marks side by side. I must notionally transport myself to the market place (see remarks of COLMAN J in Laboratoire LaCharte SA v Armour-Dial Incorporated, 1976 (2) SA 744 (T), at p 746 D) and consider whether the average customer is likely to be deceived or confused. And here I must take into account relevant surrounding circumstances, such as the way in which the goods to which the marks are applied are marketed, the types of customer who would be likely to purchase the goods, matters of common knowledge in the trade and the knowledge which such purchasers would have of the goods in question and the marks applied to them. 43 As I have already mentioned, the goods to which the Micatex and Mikacote marks were applied were offered for sale in hardware stores, multiple stores, general dealer's stores