"(a) unauthorized use as a trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, of a mark so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion." (My italics.) 25. In the Court of first instance counsel then appearing on behalf of respondent (different counsel represented respondent before us) conceded that respondent had been unauthorizedly using the mark Mikacote as a trade mark in relation to goods in respect of which appellant's trade mark was registered. In this Court, however, respondent's counsel partly withdrew this concession and submitted that the use of the mark Mikacote by respondent, although unauthorized and in relation to goods in respect of which appellant's trade mark was registered, did not amount to use as a trade mark; Mikacote was a product name, not a brand name and was, therefore, not used as a trade mark. 26. Even if respondent's counsel were correct in this submission, I am not sure, in view of the provisions of s. 44(1)(b) - which deals with the unauthorized use of a mark otherwise than as a trade mark - that a finding that Mikacote was not used as a mark would really assist respondent's case. Be that as it may, I do not think that the submission is sound. In s. 2 of the Act the following definition of "trade mark" is to be found: " 'trade mark', other than a certification mark, means a mark used or proposed to be used in relation to goods or services for the purposes of — (a) indicating a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services and some person having the right, either as proprietor / or... 27