The Appellant was the registered proprietor of two trademarks. In 1994, the Appellant applied, in terms of section34 of the Trade Marks Act 62 of 1963 ("the Act"), to introduce amendments so that the trademarks could be depicted with more clarity. The Respondent opposed the application claiming that (i) the registration was invalid, (ii) the proposed amendment substantially affected the identity of the trademarks and therefore contravened the provisions of section 34 of the Act, as well as section 10(2). The Appellant denied the same and submitted that the amendment sought was required to clarify the registration, did not conflict with other existing trademarks and also did not broaden or extend its rights. The Registrar of Trade Marks refused the application on the basis that the representation as sought to be amended, introduced material alterations which substantially affected the identity of the trademark. The Appellant appealed against the decision. Held ­ The Court, in considering whether the trademarks had been substantially affected by the proposed amendment, referred to the judgment of BernsteinPage 126 of [1997] 3 All SA 125 (T)Manufacturing Co Ltd v Shepherdson 1968 (4) SA 386 (T), in which Cillie J adopted the "arresting features test", viz., whether, after a physical inspection of the side of the mark by side it was clear that the mark used had retained the arresting features of the mark registered. The Court was satisfied that this was the test to be applied in section 34applications. The Court held, after analyzing drawings of the representation submitted by the Appellant, that the arresting features as displayed in the original registration had been retained. In addition, the identity of the trademarks has not been substantially affected within the meaning of section 34 of the Act. The appeal was accordingly upheld.NoteFor Trade Marks, see LAWSA (Vol 29, paragraphs 1­276)Cases referred to in judgment("C" means confirmed; "F" means followed and "R" means reversed.)Bernstein Manufacturing Co (1961) (Pvt) Ltd v Shepherdson 1968 (4) SA 386 (T) ­ FCointreau et Cie SA v Pagan International 1991 (4) SA 706 (A)United Bank Ltd v Standard Bank of SA Ltd 1991 (4) SA 810 (T)United KingdomCluett Peabody & Company Inc v McIntyre Hogg Marsh & Co Ltd 1958 RPCJudgmentDANIELS J