In order to substantiate its claim that respondent was passing off its product Mikacote as appellant's product Micatex appellant adduced evidence of three "trap" approaches made to certain of respondent's retail outlets in the northern suburbs of Cape Town. Precisely what occurred on these three occasions is in dispute; but what does emanate clearly from the undisputed evidence in regard thereto is that the sales assistants at respondent's outlets sold and offered for sale respondent's texture coating under the name Mikacote. Thus, for example, Mrs M Thacker, a saleslady employed by respondent at its shop in Goodwood, stated that — " on a number of occasions prospective customers have asked us whether we do stock Micatex, but we have always stated unequivocally that we do not, but that we in fact 21. stock Mikacote, which is not the same product as Micatex, as the former does not contain marble, whereas the latter does". And, in another instance, Mr Cilliers, the manager of a retail store operated by respondent in Belville, conceded that in an interview with Mr H E A Wesson, a director of one of appellant's subsidiaries, he (Cilliers) wrote on a Dekro data sheet relating to Mikacote the words "is presies dieselfde as Micatex". He explained that what he intended to convey was that Mikacote fulfilled the same function as Micatex. Prior to launching the notice of motion proceedings appellant caused a search to be made in the records of the Registrar of Trade Marks in regard 22 to all trade marks containing the word "Mica". There were at the time five such marks. None of them was registered in the same class as Micatex. Moreover, there was no other trade mark registered in class, 2 of the fourth schedule, other than Micatex, which