incorporated the words "Mica" or "Mika". In fact there is no evidence of any use in South Africa in respect of paint or allied products of any trade mark containing the word "Mica", save for the use by appellant of the trade mark "Micatex"and the use by respondent of the marks "Mikadek" and "Mikacote". On appeal to us the argument revolved mainly around three basic issues. These were: 23. (1) Whether the use by respondent of the mark Mikacote was use as a trade mark. (2) Whether the use by respondent of the mark Mikacote infringed appellant's rights as the registered proprietor of the trade mark Micatex. (3) Whether the use by respondent of the mark Mikacote was protected by the provisions of s. 46(b) of the Act. In addition, respondent's counsel emphasized the disputes of fact raised by the affidavits and pointed out that appellant never sought to resolve these issues by means of oral evidence. I have already dealt with this aspect of the matter. The existence of disputes of 24. fact does not, as I have indicated, necessarily preclude a final interdict being granted. The main consequence is simply that, in terms of the above-mentioned general rule, where the affidavits in this case raise real and bona fide disputes of fact, the appellant is bound to accept the respondent's version of the facts. I proceed now to consider the three basic issues. Use as a trade mark It is provided by s. 44(1)(a) that subject to certain provisions of the Act, which are not immediately relevant, the rights acquired by registration of a trade mark shall be infringed by -