1. ' The appellants sought registra ion of a Trade Mark `JU-C' in Class 32 in respect of certain drinks and beverai es manufactured by them. An objection was raised to the registration of such rade mark under section 6(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. Ultimately th Deputy Registrar by his order passed on 4-7-1991 refused registration of the mark in question, mainly on the ground that three- letter combination of the and constituting the proposed mark do not form a distinct monogram qualifyir g for registration as a trade mark under the Act. He relied on the case of Ford Werke AG's published in RPC (1955 - 72 RPC 191) for deciding the present case.
2. ' Mr. Khawaja Mansoor, Advoc ate, for the appellant mainly contended that in fact the appellant applied for -egistration of the trade mark covered under section 6(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 and reference to sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of section 6 of the said Act by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks is irrelevant. In the press nt case the word j U-C' is combination of three letters and is a distinctive w )rd capable of being pronounced as a word.
3. ' The case reported in 72 .RI C 191 and relied on by the Deputy Registrar for his decision has no reference to the facts of the present case. Besides, the judgment itself clarifies tl at although combination of two words were good marks for the purpose of registration in countries other than U.K. but as such practice was not prevalent in that country the registration was refused.
4. I ' A letter or combination of letters is a mark under its definition provided by section 2(1)(f) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The restriction imposed under section 6(1)(e) of the said Act requires that the mark as of necessity is to be a distinctive mark for the purpose of registration. Articulate coining of a monogram composed of even three letters if results in a distinct words phonetically capable of conveying some meaning can be registered as a trade mark under section 6(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons the order impugned in this appeal is set aside and case is remanded to the Deputy Registrar, to reconsider the case for registration of the mark applied for by the appellants under the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed.