Whether the raised by the intention is of no bearing on [10] background consisting of a top-heavy T was intended to form part of the mark is a question respondent, but the application has to be taken at face value and the appellant's unexpressed no consequence. The application contains a number of admissions or disclaimers but these have the enquiry under section 17(1). Section 17(1) creates an absolute bar to registration provided the jurisdictional fact is present, namely that the use of both 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. The decision involves a value judgment and "[t]he ultimate test is, after all, as I have already indicated, whether on a comparison of the two marks it can properly be said that there is a reasonable likelihood of confusion if both are to be used together in a normal and fair manner, in the ordinary course of business." (SmithKline Beecham Consumer Brands (Pty) Ltd (formerly known 1995 (2) SA 903 (A) at 912H.) as Beecham "Likelihood" refers to a reasonable probability (/bid at 910B) although the surplusage. In considering whether the use of the respondent's mark would South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Unilever plc adjective "reasonable" be likely to deceive or View is perhaps Parallel Citation cause confusion, regard must be had to the essential function of a trade mark, namely to indicate the origin of the goods in connection with which it is used (The Upjohn Company v Merck 1987 (3) SA 221 (T) at 227E-F; Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (formerly Pathé Communications Corporation) [1999] RPC 117 (ECJ) paragraph 28). Registered trade marks do not create monopolies in relation to concepts or ideas. More recently this Court in Page 247 of [2001] 4 All SA 242 (A) Bata Ltd v Face Fashions CC and another 2001 (1) SA 844 (A) at 850 paragraph 9 pointed out that the approach adopted in Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1998] RPC 199 (ECJ) at 224 accords with our case law. There it was said that the likelihood of confusion must "be appreciated globally" (cf Organon Laboratories Ltd v Roche Products (Pty) Ltd 1976 (1) SA 195 (T) at 202F-203A) and that the "global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components." (Cf SmithKline at 910B-H and Canon (supra) at paragraph 16-17.) [11] As far as the visual similarity is concerned, both the Deputy Registrar and the court a quo held that the mark of the appellant on the one hand and those of the respondent on the other are visually so different that confusion or deception is improbable. Bovine devices are to be expected on dairy products and provide a common feature as the admissions or disclaimers testify. The three cows are represented in substantially different ways. It is not necessary to elaborate since the respondent did not attack these findings. [12] The aural aspect was not dealt with by the court a quo in so many words as a separate inquiry. What has to be compared is then Dairybelle and to a lesser extent Jerseybel on the one hand with Cowbell on the other. Since the suffix ''-le" in Dairybelle is muted it may be of no audible consequence to the consumer who is unaware that the word as pronounced can refer to a dairy maid. The words "dairy" and "cow" bear no auditory relationship to one another. Neither do "jersey" and "cow". The emphasis in both the respondent's marks is on the first part which form the dominant parts of the words. "Dairy" and "jersey" are two-syllable words whereas “cow consists of one syllable. Dairybelle and Jerseybel represent unusual combinations of words and are ina sense invented words whereas Cowbell is an ordinary word bearing an ordinary connotation. Since the respondent did not submit that confusion or deception is likely in this context, it is unnecessary to belabour my conclusion that there is no such likelihood. [13] Regarding conceptual similarity, the court a quo found that a person having heard the one mark advertised on the radio, when confronted with the other in a supermarket, will not be astute enough to discern that they are not the same or are not cows from the same herd. The concept created is that of a dairy full of cows with bells used in connection with dairy products. It reasoned that to the listener, who does not have the benefit of visual comparison, the concepts are too close for View comfort. In conclusion it held that this reasoning applied a fortiori in the Respondent adopted this line of reasoning, emphasising that - case Parallel of Jerseybel and Citation Cowbell. "[t]he marks must be considered as wholes; one must look for the main idea, or the general impression, conveyed to the mind by each of the marks and at the essential features, rather than the exact details, of each." (Adidas Sportschuhfabriken Adi Dassler KG v Harry Walt & Co (Pty) Ltd 1976 [14] (1) SA 530 (T) at 536B-C.) Albeit in the context of the interpretation of a European Community Council Directive, the European Justice in Sabe/ (at 223-224) made some observations that are pertinent to the present issue: Court of