(1) This is a petition by way of appeal filed by consolidated Foods Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Mary land in the United States of America and having its principal place of business at San Francisco, California, against the order and judgment of Mr. C.D.V. Raman, the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, dismissing its oppositions to the three applications being application No. 178155, application No. 178158 and application No. 178159 filed by the respondents Messrs. Brandon and Co. Private Limited for registration of the mark ""Monarch"" in respect of certain fruits and vegetables preparations.

(2) On 23rd January 1957, the respondent company filed the three applications aforesaid for registration of the mark consisting of the word ""Monarch"" (per se) in classes 29, 30 and 32 respectively. Application No. 178155 was in respect of ""preserved, dried, and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies and jams, preserves and pickles, "" all being goods included in Class 29: Application No. 178158 was in respect of ""sauces, spices, cury powders, papads (being cereal preparations) and condiments"" and Application No. 178159 was in respect of ""syrups (not included in other classes ) and other preparations for making beverages; and other non-alcoholic drinks:"" These applications were advertised as accepted for registration in the Trade Mark Journal No. 199 dated 16th September , 1957.

(3) The petitioner corporation filed separate notices of opposition to each of these applications, being opposition Nos. 3959, 3958 and 3960 respectively. The grounds of opposition set out in those notices were the same and they were as follows:

""a) That by reason of the use of the word ""Monarch"" by the opponents (the petitioners) prior to 1951, the use of the said was likely to deceive or cause confusion, and, therefore, its registration would

be contrary to the provisions of Section II (a) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958:

b) That the adoption and use of proposed mark by the respondents was not bona fide.

c) That the respondents were not the proprietors of the mark;

d) That the respondents mark was disentitled to protection in a Court of Justice as its use was

contrary to law; and

e) That in the exercise of the discretion of the Registrar, the registration of the mark should be refused.""

(4) The respondent company by its counter statement denied the allegations made by the petitioner corporation in its notices of opposition and submitted that it had honestly adopted the word ""Monarch"" as its trade mark and it had been carrying on business under the said trade mark on a large and extensive scale since 1951. The respondent company specifically denied in the counter statement that the petitioner corporation had ever sold any goods bearing the mark ""Monarch"" in India and submitted that question of confusion or deception therefore did not arise.

(5) In support of the application filed by the respondent company, affidavits were filed by Mr. F.W. Audsley, a director of the respondent company and by some traders and customers. One affidavit by Shri Autar Krishna Sharma, the managing director of Messrs. Kipre(India) Private Ltd. was also filed. On the other hand, in support of the opposition filed by the petitioner corporation, affidavits of Mr. Jamie Phiroz Birdi, the representative in India of the petitioner corporation, Mr. Richard G.Grant, Vice-President and a Principal Officer of the petitioner corporation and Mr. Stacey H. Gifford, Vice-President and Secretary of the petitioner corporation were filed. Besides these affidavits, four affidavits of customers were also filed. A further affidavit was also filed by Mr. Jamie Phiroz Birdi.

(6) As the parties concerned and the issues involved in all these application and oppositions were the same, all of them were consolidated and heard together by the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks. At the hearing, evidence was also given by Rustom Merwan Rustom on behalf of the pet