he appellant supplied and fitted windscreens to motor vehicles, including those manufactured by the respondent. In advertising its services, the appellant used the respondent's trade name to indicate that it supplied windows for such vehicles. The respondent's claim was based primarily on the provisions of section 34(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of1993 which sets out how trademark rights are infringed. The court a quo found that the appellant's use of the respondent's name was unlawful, leading to the appellant's seeking leave to appeal. Although the above conclusion meant that the appellant had no prospect of success on appeal, the court granted leave to appeal as the order of the lower court contained two errors which would require amendment