LENTIN, J.:- Is the word CIPLAMINA deceptively similar to COMPLAMINA? Such is the essential nature of the controversy before us.

2. The appellants carry, on business inter alia as manufacturers of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. One of their trade marks is COMPLAMINA registered on 5th May 1960 for a medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation which according to the appellant's is sold in India since 1966 in the form of ampoules (under doctors' prescription) and tablets (across the counter) for the treatment of vascular disorders. The registration is subsisting. On 17th July 1972, the 1st respondent-Company (referred to hereafter as "the respondents") who carry on like business, filed an application for registration in their name the mark CIPLAMINA proposed to be used by them in Part A Class 5 in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparation. The appellants filed their notice of opposition inter alia on the ground that the respondents' proposed mark was deceptively similar to their registered mark. The respondents filed their counter-statement. Evidence by way of affidavits was filed by both parties. However, before us neither party relied on them and rightly s