1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---On 7-3-1975 respondent No,1 filed an Application No,61870 in class 3 for the registration of his trade mark LIGHT soap in urdu language in respect of washing soap. This application was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal. The appellant filed opposition on 26-6-1978 on the grounds interalia that respondent No,1 did not rightly claim to be the proprietor of LIGHT soap trade mark and that the registration proposed would be contrary to the provisions of sections 6,10(1), 8 (a) and 14 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1940.
2. ' The appellant claimed to be engaged in manufacturing and sale of soaps, substances of laundry use and other washing and cleaning preparation and one of the leading companies in the world so trading. The appellant's subsidiary and licensee M/s. Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited is the registered user and manufacture of appellant's products in conformity with its prescribed standards and quality which are sold under the appellant's trade marks. The appellant is proprietor of trade marks 'LUX' and SUNLIGHT' and also of labels, wrappers and cartons showing the word LUX and SUNLIGHT and has obtained registration in respect of the said trade marks in Pakistan and other countries of the world. It has been alleged that the LUX and SUNLIGHT trade marks of the appellant have been extensively used in respect of soaps throughout former British India including territories now forming part of Pakistan and have continued to be used and advertised in Pakistan on a substantial scale.
3. ' The appellant filed affidavits supported by documentary evidence to establish sales and advertisements of soaps for many years in Pakistan under mark LUX and SUNLIGHT trade mark. By producing sales figures and expenses of advertisement the appellant intended to demonstrate that soaps sold under LUX and SUNLIGHT trade marks have acquired valuable reputation and good will in Pakistan and the products are associated exclusively with the appellant and its registered user. It was also objected that the English translation of the word LUX is light and therefore LUX soap is in fact Light Soap which respondent No,1 seeks to be registered in its name. The appellant had promoted concept of light in relation to its soaps which idea was conveyed by LUX and SUNLIGHT trade marks. It was alleged that the concept or idea of light in relation to soaps is exclusively associated with the appellant. The essential features of appellant's LUX and SUNLIGHT trade marks and that of the respondent's LIGHT soap mark are identical and so closely resemble with appellants mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Respondent No,1 is attempting to pass off the goods of the appellant which are sold widely even in remotest villages in Pakistan and purchased by all sections of public. It was also stated that to the knowledge of the appellant, respondent No,1 was not manufacturing LIGHT soap.
4. ' Respondent No,1 filed counter-statement to the opposition supported by the affidavits of traders and consumers. It also filed the assessment orders in respect of assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-
74. It was stated that respondent No,1 started manufacturing LIGHT soap from the year 1965 after making enquiries from the market that no marks similar to trade mark word `LIHGT' in urdu language was in use in the markets of Pakistan in respect of washing soap and since then it has continuously been manufactured and sold by it. Due to continuous use since 1965, Light Washing Soap has acquired goodwill and reputation and said goods bearing the said mark are asked and sold in the market belonging to respondent No,1. It was pleaded that M/s Lever Brothers Pakistan has not used the mark SUNLIGHT in Urdu or in English in respect of toilet soap for a period exceeding 5 years and one month and the said mark has been abandoned in Pakistan. So also the trade mark word SUNLIGHT in Urdu or English in respect of laundry soaps in Pakistan have not been used and stand abandoned. The marks LUX and SUNLIGHT are not similar to the appellant's mark LIGHT and relate to different goods. The appellant had never objected or called upon the respondent No,1 to stop the use of the said mark. It was denied that the appellant came to know about the LIGHT soap through the notice when it was published in the Trade Mark Journal. Respondent No,1 also stated that it is paying excise duty and income tax regularly and that the mark is neither deceptive nor it will cause any confusion in the mind of the consumers and the public.
5. ' Respondent No,2 allowed the registration and the appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the questions raised by the appellant as have been enumerated above. Before considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant it may be proper to state the evidence produced by the parties. The appellant filed affidavits of Mr. S.H. Zaidi a Manager M/s Lever Brothers, Mr. Aziz Bhai Director of Messrs Dawood Trading Company of Sukkur, engaged in the distribution of soap and Mr. Rashid Abdullah Director of United Distributors Ltd. These distributors have given the tonnage of sale of Sunlight and Lux soaps. They have stated that they have never seen any soap marketed in Pakistan under the trade marks LIGHT and LIGHT soap. In their opinion soap with LIGHT mark will be confused and passed off as the product of the appellant and its licensee.
6. ' The respondent alongwith his counter-statement has filed affidavit of Sher Ahmed, Soap Merchant of Peshawar. Muhammad Khan of Peshawar has claimed that he has been using LIGHT washing soap manufactured by respondent No,1 from 1965. He has further stated that this soap is now associated with the name of respondent No,1. To the same fact are the affidavits of Din Muhammad and Qadir Khan. Malik Muhammad Anwar. Managing Partner of respondent No,1 has also filed his detailed affidavit giving the annual sale figures from 1965 to 1975 and denied the contents of affidavits and averments made by the appellant and its witnesses. The other affidavits filed on behalf of respondent No,1 are from several traders and consumers from Peshawar and Mardan. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties the Deputy Registrar has held the LUX and SUNLIGHT soaps are used as toilet soaps only and further that laundry soap and toilet soap are goods of different description. SUNLIGHT and LUX are not used for laundry purpose. This finding of the Deputy Registrar was confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
7. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the quality of evidence produced by the respondent. He has invited our attention to the affidavits filed on behalf of respondent No,1. The affidavits filed by Salam Gul, Mukhtar Ahmed, Abdul Malik, Jamshaid Khan, Muhammad Iqbal and Habibur Rahman have been challenged by pointing out that although they are residents of Peshawar, and seem to have signed the affidavits there but they were attested by the Oath Commissioner at Sialkot on the same date. It is correct that the place of execution seems to be Peshawar but the Oath Commissioner had attested it at Sialkot. These are the affidavits of traders and purchasers to the effect that since 1965 they have been selling or using LIGHT soap of Sultan Soap Factory which is a laundry soap. It has further been stated that Sunlight and Lux soaps manufactured by the appellant are not laundry soap nor they are sold as such. The veracity of these affidavits has been challenged, as they were not sworn before the Oath Commissioner or Notary Public. In the reply such objection does not seem to have been raised. However, Malik Muhammad Anwar, Managing Director of Respondent No,1 has stated the same facts in detail in his properly sworn affidavit. Earlier to it the learned counsel for the respondent had filed interlocutory petition in respect of opposition filed by the appellant in which he had filed the affidavit of Malik Muhammad Anwar dated 16-2-1976 and the affidavits of Sher Ahmed and H.Din Muhammad and also the affidavits of purchasers Samad Khan and Qadir Khan to establish user of mark 'LIGHT' for soap. Copies of these affidavits were supplied to the Advocate for the appellant as is clear from the original interlocutory application available on the record of the Deputy Registrar and has also been included in the paper book. The original affidavits are also on the record of the Deputy Registrar.
8. These affidavits were sworn at Sialkot. In the original after their address it has been stated that "presently they are at Sialkot" which shows that they had come to Sialkot to swear the affidavits before the Oath Commissioner. The learned counsel for the appellant also attacked the veracity of the evidence by pointing out that they are as regards the cash memos because before the Deputy Registrar the cash memos were filed but before the Income Tax Authorities it was stated that the sales were made on credit basis and not on cash basis. However, the Income-tax Officer has not believed it and remarked in the assessment order that such statement made for the assessment year 1972 was against the history of the case. It was observed that in fact "the assessee has given a look of credit to cash sales by first debiting the account of the purchaser and then crediting the same account on the same date". Therefore, the objections raised can only be to the extent that due to contradictory statement cash memos are of doubtful nature. Be that as it may, the fact remains that assessm ents for the accounting years commencing from 1st July, 1969 to 30th June, 1970 and upto the accounting year 1973 have been completed. From these assessment orders respondent No,1 has proved the manufacture and sale of laundry soap from 1969 onwards in substantial quantity. In 1973 the respondent had shown loss but there had been sale of Rs,72,91,867 which is substantial in nature. On the other hand the appellant has produced evidence of employee of Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. And its distributors to prove the sale of SUNLIGHT and LUX.
9. In 1961 sale of SUNLIGHT was 1,864 M.Tons, from 1971 it had shown downward trend the lowest being 273 tons in the year 1974 but it seems to have risen in 1975. During 1972,1973 and 1974 the appellant did not make any expense on the advertisement of SUNLIGHT soap but in 1975 it did rise to Rs,1,30,000 and again fell to Rs25,000 in 1976. However, in 1977 again no advertisement expense was made. It may also be noted that in photo copy of the invoices annexed with the affidavit of Mr. Zaidi marked A/1 to A/6 SUNLIGHT has been described as toilet soap. On assessment of evidence the learned Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that the contention of respondent No,1 that SUNLIGHT has been not used in the last 5 years is not correct and further that goods of both the parties are of different description as appellants Sunlight is toilet soap while respondent No,1 is manufacturing laundry soap. These findings have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
10. ' Mr. Fateh Vellani, learned Advocate for the appellant contended that as user of the mark by respondent No,1 is not concurrent and honest it is not entitled to registration. He further contended that throughout the appellant's case has been treated by the High Court as well as by the Deputy Registrar a case entirely falling under section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act and they have not taken into consideration that the concurrent use, if any, was not honest and the registration was likely to deceive and cause confusion. Learned counsel has referred the Jamia Industries Ltd. v. Caltex Oil (Pak. Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 8). The learned counsel further contended that words LUX and SUNLIGHT are registered and used for Soap and laundry items and are associated with the appellant's name and therefore the respondent's soap under the mark LIGHT even in urdu is likely to cause confusion and deception and is likely to be taken to be the product of the appellant.
11. ' Before considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant it is necessary to first determine such facts which are germane to the decision of the question raised in the appeal. The Tribunal and the High Court have on assessment of evidence found that the appellant manufactures toilet soap under trade marks LUX and SUNLIGHT. This fact has weighed much in granting registration of the mark. Respondent No,1 from the very beginning has been alleging that it has applied for registration of the mark for laundry soap, and further that the appellant does not manufacture laundry soap under its trade marks LUX and SUNLIGHT. The appellant relied on the registration of these trade marks and several other trade marks under the word SUNLIGHT which were registered differently for soap, substances for laundry use, bleaching preparation cleaning, polishing, abrasive preparations, perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and dentifrices.
12. SUNLIGHT (word) and also for carton, wrapper, label was registered in English, Pashto, Urdu and Sindhi languages. The appellant is also proprietor of trade marks (1) device of RISING SUN (2) Word `SUN' (3) SUNSHINE (word) (4) SUNBEAM (5) SUNLIGHT SOAP (6) SUNSILK (7) SUNSET and (8) SUNEL.
13. However, from the evidence it was not established that laundry soap is manufactured under the mark `SUNLIGHT'. Nor was it establishing that any goods were manufactured under the trade marks `SUNLIGHT' registered in Urdu, Sindhi or Pashto. But the fact remains that the appellant owns these trade marks as stated above. One fact of significance transpire that in all the trade marks referred above word SUN is the prefix. It is this word which registers first and not the word Light.
14. Section 10(1) Trade Marks Act 1940 prohibits registration of a trade mark in respect of any goods which is identical to a trade mark or similar to it that due to resemblance there is every likelihood of causing deception and confusion. But this rule is subject to the exception as contained in subsection (2) of section 10 which permits registration of such mark provided there is honest concurrent use of such mark or any special circumstance exists which may justify such registration. In such cases registration may be granted subject to conditions and limitations. It can thus be observed that section 10 proceeds on completely different premises from section 8. In Seven-Up Co. v. Kohinoor Thread Ball Factory PLD 1990 SC 313 at page 344 it was observed that Trade Marks Act 1940 "recognises and also protects trade mark in relation to goods, and not independently of goods. Therefore, one is justified in claiming protection for a particular trade mark only if it is related to a particular goods or class or category of goods". While referring to section 8(a) it was observed that "the test provided therein is not the identity of the trade mark or of goods but likelihood of deception or confusion, such as to entitle the protection in a Court of lave. In a subsequent judgment of Alpha Sewing Machine Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and another PLD 1990 SC 1074 while noting these observations the appellant's application for registration of trade mark 'Philip' for sewing machine though not manufactured by the respondent was rejected holding that "even then the question of deception and. Confusion could not be ignored as that remains the pivotal point in our law on the issue involved in this case". These judgments clearly expound the law as contemplated by section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act.
15. ' The appellant however is pressing section 10 as it is the owner of registered trade marks and the trade mark of respondent No,1 is similar or resembles them. Within the four comors of section 10 it is to be considered whether trade mark of respondent No,1 is same or similar to the appellant's marks and resembles them, secondly, whether the trade mark is in respect of the same goods or description of goods in respect of which the appellant has its registered trade marks and thirdly, whether resemblance or similarity is such that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Some of the inquiries depend upon the facts established on the record. The concurrent findings are that the appellant has registered its trade marks SUNLIGHT and LUX for soap and laundry preparation but manufactures only toilet soaps under these two marks. Respondent No,1 is manufacturing laundry soap under the mark 'LIGHT' in urdu. According to the learned counsel for the appellant it is the registration and not the user which is material for the purpose of determining contraversy under section 10(1). The High Court and the Deputy Registrar both have held that laundry soap and toilet soap are of two different categories of goods and in this regard reliance has been placed on Cresent Pak Soap and Oil Mills v.. Dy. Register of Trade Marks Chitagong and another, PLD 1969 SC
292. In this case the appellant had applied for registration of trade mark 'Camel' in respect of washing soap. It was observed that "word camel had become common to the trade regarding soap in class three and therefore unless one can establish proprietary right thereto by sufficiently long user, it cannot be said that it had become associated with the products manufactured by such a person and that if anyone else uses it with other qualifying or distinguishing features there would still be a chance of the customer or user being confused". It was observed that 'the previous trade marks of the appellant of which registration had been granted in 1954 were in respect of toilet soap but the mark sought to be registered by the respondent No,2 was in respect of washing soap. There could therefore, be no question of the appellant having acquired any proprietary right to such a trade mark in respect of washing soap or any one being confused between the two different kinds of soap merely because of this single common feature of the trade mark". The learned counsel for the appellant emphasised that the competing marks were to operate in two different territories of East Pakistan and West Pakistan and further that camel had become common to the trade regarding soap.
16. ' Now considering the facts of this case it is clear that the respondentNo,1 is using the trade mark 'LIGHT' in urdu and not in english language in respect of laundry soap. From the affidavits filed it seems that the entire sale of the respondent No,1 is in the Punjab, and N.-W.F.P. According to the learned counsel for the appellant as respondent No,1 is using 'LIGHT' in urdu there is every likelihood of confusion with the appellant's mark 'SUNLIGHT' as it has been registered in Urdu, Sindhi and Pashto also In this respect learned counsel has referred to Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Ch. Muhammad Altaf PLD 1991 SC 27). In this case the appellant had invented the word Toshiba and got it registered as manufacturer . Of goods of various classes. The respondent applied for registration of its trade mark. Toshiba in Urdu for goods like electric fans of all kinds falling in class 11 claiming use of mark since 1978. On receipt of this application the Trade Mark Registry Officer reported that mark Toshiba stood registered in class 11 in favour of M/s Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. Japan for installation of lighting and heating. Respondent No,1 filed objections but the Registrar granted registration with the conditions that the mark will always be used in Urdu as applied and advertised, trading style will always be prominently displayed with the mark and goods shall remain fans all types and activities shall not be extended further under this mark. The appellant was also asked not to export his products from the country under their accepted mark.
17. ' In appeal the High Court upheld the order of the Registrar. The appellant then appealed before the Supreme Court, where it was observed that trade mark of respondent No,1 is phonetically identical with the registered trade mark of the appellant, whether the goods are similar or not, the Registrar should have examined whether there was likelihood of deception. It was also observed that the respondent had not shown any reason tenable at law to pick up an invented word of foreign origin enjoying reputation in electric goods for which there was registered trade mark in appellant's name. In this background the adoption of trade mark which was phonetically same was likely to create confusion and deception to the consumer of such goods. It may be noted that in this case the appellant had invented the word 'Toshiba'. It was not a common word used in any language.
18. The goods in respect of which respondent No,1 had sought registration were electrical goods including fans. There may be visual difference by writing Toshiba in Urdu language but the word remained the same phonetically and only visual aspect was changed. The consumers usually purchase good asking for it by its name. In such circumstances and facts phonetical similarity becomes more prominent. In the present case the registered trade mark of the appellant is 'Sunlight'. Respondent No,1 has picked up the last part of the word 'Sunlight' and written it in Urdu.
19. The word 'Light' itself does not refer to `Sunlight' nor can by asking for 'Light' soap could the customer be taken to ask for 'Sunlight' soap. In cases where part of the word is similar it is the prefix which qualifies and governs the phonetical aspect of the mark. The last part of the word does not carry that importance or impression which the earlier part of the word commands.
20. ' In this regard reference can be made to Abdul Wahid v. Abdur Rahim PLD 1973 SC 104. In this case the respondent who had been using registered trade mark 'Saigon' since 1949 filed application for rectification of register of the Trade Marks by removing the appellant's registered Trade Marks `Diagon' and `Dragon' but in appeal the learned Single Judge maintained the order in respect of Dragon and set aside in respect of Saigon. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine. The appellant with the leave of the Supreme Court filed an appeal which was accepted with the following observation:- "We have, however, heard the learned counsel for the parties; on merits at length and have compared the mark Daigon' with the word 'Saigon' and I am of the opinion that there is no phonetic or visual similarity between the registered trade marks of the appellants and the registered track mark of the respondents. So far as the first syllables are concerned they are dissimilar and have no similarity with each other. There appears to be close similarity as regards the second syllable. It seems to me that in such circumstances, it is an accepted principle that words having a common suffix but if earlier portion of these words are different, and if they do not conflict they are held to be distinctive. This view was expressed in Facsimile Letter Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. Facsimile Typewriting Co.
21. (1)".
22. ' It was further observed:-- "I have compared the words `Daigon' and 'Saigon'. The pronunciation of the word whether it is made by a person who knows English language or otherwise is absolutely different and there is no similarity between the two."
23. Where the mark sought to be registered is identical to the registered mark there can be no difficulty in determining that it will cause deception and confusion. But where the mark is not similar to the registered mark and goods are also different it may create some difficulty. As per the words of the judgment in Toshiba's case "In case the Registrar of Trade Marks comes to the conclusion that the matter falls within the prohibited category then he has no discretion but has to refuse registration. His discretion arises only when after recording the finding of fact that the matter does not fall within the prohibited category he yet considers on certain good grounds that registration is not allowed or has to be allowed conditionally'.
24. ' The Deputy Registrar and the High Court have relied upon Cresent-Pak Soap case referred above where registration was allowed in a restricted manner.
25. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on Jamia Industry Ltd. v. Caltax Oil Ltd. And another (PLD 1984 SC 8). In this case the appellant had applied for registration of a mark containing the word `Jamia' with the devices of 5 pointed star inside a cresent in class 4 for lubricating oil. Caltax Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. Opposed this application on the grounds that they were proprietors of two registered trade marks one with the word CALTAX and a Star device registered on 21-9-1953 and. The other mark containing the device of Star with letter T and the words TAXACO registered on 30-12-1948 both for the same goods in class 4. As the Deputy Registrar upheld the opposition the appellant filed an appeal before the erstwhile High Court of Sindh and Baluchistan which was dismissed. In this case also the prominent part of both the marks was star and the marks related to the same goods. The learned counsel also referred to Cecil DE Cordova and others v. Cick Chemical Co. (PLD 1951 Privy Council 108). This was a case of infringement of a trade marks Vapo Rub and Vicks Vapo Rub registered in the name of the respondents. The appellants were importing medical ointment bearing the name of "Karsote Vapour Rub" which was challenged by the respondents. While upholding the respondents' plea it was observed that "if a word forming part of mark has come in trade to be used to identify the goods of the owner of the mark, it is an infringement of the mark itself to use that word as the mark or part of the mark of another trader.
26. For confusion is likely to result". The learned counsel also referred to the case in the Matter of Currie and Co's Application for A Trade Mark 13, R.P.C. 681 where the trade mark was refused registration as the proposed mark of the applicant was similar to the registered mark and an ordinary person would be deceived.
27. A trade mark which is identical or similar to a registered trade mark in respect of the same goods or description of goods or if it resembles with the registered trade mark which is likely to cause confusion and deception to the unwary purchasers should not be registered. However, in case of honest concurrent user it may be registered, which may be subject to limitations and conditions imposed by the Registrar. The intention is to protect unwary purchasers and public at large. The question whether a trade mark will cause confusion or deception is a question of fact which may be determined by examination of the marks, user, reputation, notoriety, nature of goods, connection with the goods attached to the name of the manufacturer and such other considerations. It is now well-settled that it is not necessary that the goods of both the parties may be the same. However, in cases where goods are different the ultimate object of finding out confusion and deception is to he judged on consideration whether the name of the owner of the registered mark is so much associated with the goods that if same or similar mark is registered, the purchaser will take the goods under such mark in the normal course, the product of the proprietor of the registered mark. Therefore, in such case besides identical nature or similarity of trade mark the governing factor is the association of proprietor's name with the goods, its reputation and good will. The cases of 7-UP PLD 1990 SC 313 and Alpha Sewing Machine case PLD 1990 SC 1074 illustrate this conclusion. This criteria becomes more important where proprietors of trade mark and trade name are the same or any invented word is sought to be imitated. In such circumstances the applicant for registration of similar or identical mark has to establish honesty and bona fides of higher degree. The appellant's registered mark "SUNLIGHT" is different from the mark "LIGHT " in Urdu language. The appellant has got "SUNLIGHT" registered in Urdu , Sindhi and Pashto languages but there is nothing on record that it has manufactured soap under these marks except under "SUNLIGHT" in English language. The respondent's case is that appellant does not manufacture "SUNLIGHT" laundry soap but production of "SUNLIGHT" soap has not been denied. Respondent No,1 has established concurrent user. The respondent's sale seems to be restricted in the Provinces of Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. The evidence does not seem to establish that SUNLIGHT has attained notoriety and association with the appellant that soap of any nature with the mark "LIGHT" will be taken to be the goods of the appellant. As observed earlier in a word having two syllables it is the first one which creates striking effect and causes confusion or deception.
28. Similarity of last syllable cannot create the required effect and confusion. Mere use of word "LIGHT" will not automatically be taken for "SUNLIGTH' " or product of the appellant. All the trade marks of the appellant referred above have the first syllable as "SUN". It is the word "SUN" which strikes and not the Light. Considering that so many trade marks with the prefix SUN have been registered the appellant may subject to proof claim association-with this word alone. In this background concurrent user has to be taken into consideration. Once it is proved that registration of 'LIGHT' in Urdu will not create confusion or deception , the question why the respondent has chosen the word "LIGHT" is of little significance. This would have been important if "LIGHT " would have been the trade name of the appellant and all soaps bearing mark `LIGHT' would have been considered product of the appellant. This is not the case here therefore bona fides of the respondent No,1 cannot be doubted. Moreso, as according to evidence, respondent No,1 operates in the area where appellant's products with mark "SUNLIGHT" do not seem to be popular. ENcept the evidence of its employees and distributors no evidence of consumers and retailers has been produced. The averment regarding sale of "SUNLIGHT" is vague and refers to tonnage without specifying the areas of sale particularly in Punjab and N.-W.F.P.
29. ' The learned counsel for the appellant referring to trade mark LUX contended that it is a Latin word meaning 'LIGHT' which quality has been associated with the appellant's trade mark and goods and therefore the adoption of trade mark 'Light' by respondent No,1 will create confusion and deception.
30. The learned counsel has referred to T.G. Balla-G Chettiar v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay AIR 1967 Madras 148. The appellant had applied for registration of its mark containing the word 'Sudan' for soap in which trade he claimed to be in for a very long time and had thus become the owner or proprietor of this trade mark and was entitled to its registration. The application was refused by the Deputy Registrar against which appeal was filed and the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar to dispose of appellant's application according to law and on merits. After the application was advertised Hindustan Lever Ltd. Which seems to be counter-part of the appellant's licensee in Pakistan opposed the application for registration stating that for 65 years they have been selling throughout India with the name or mark 'Sun' or Sunlight' by using label printed on carton or on paper wrapper used for packing soaps. About 5 names with prefix with the word 'Sun' had been registered in its favour. At the hearing the appellant claimed disclaimer in respect of the device 'Sun' and the word 'Sun' on the ground that it is a feature common to the trade but the Registrar declined to register as besides the 'Sun' there was no other portion of the trade mark possessing distinctive feature justifying registration. While considering section 12 of the Indian Act which is equivalent to section 10 of our Act, it was observed that "a Tamil knowing purchaser who is not conversant with English will ask for respondent's soap as the `Surian' soap and therefore there is every likelihood of customers and dealers being given "Surian" mark soap of the appellant when actually they want to purchase respondent's soap". The appeal was therefore dismissed. The observations of this judgment cannot be applied to the present case as the meaning of Lux is hardly known to common people in this country. The word "LIGHT" without any device demonstrating the qualities of light or sun can hardly be taken to confuse customer and dealers nor any person who asks for "Light" soap will be given 'Lux' because this name is so well-known and popular that it cannot be mistaken to be the "Light' soap. Particularly as "Lux" soap is toilet soap while "Light" soap is a laundry soap. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case while granting registration, limitations and conditions can be imposed under section 10(2) of the Act. The registration of the word `Light' in Urdu is granted subject to the condition that respondent No,1 shall use the word 'SULTAN before LIGHT' soap, Respondent No,1 shall use this mark for manufacturing laundry soap only and shall restrict its wholesale within the provinces of Punjab and N.-W.F.P. Only and shall not export outside Pakistan.