The use of a trademark that is similar to an existing trademark for goods that are closely connected can be refused registration if it is likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public.

( 1 ) THIS appeal lias taken interminable time. Though preferred in 1962 it could not be heard (ill today cither for one reason or another.

( 2 ) THE dispute between the parties relates to the use of the word "dalda". Hindustan Levers Ltd. are the owners and the users of the trade mark DALDA in respect of hydrogenated vegetable product of Vanaspati since the year 1926.

( 3 ) THIS word DALDA was invented prior to 1926 by M/s N. V. H. Hargos Fabriken of Holland and was used as a trade mark for edible oils and fats. This Dutch firm assigned the mark to Hindustan Holland Vanaspati Trading Co. Ltd. by a deed of assignment in August, 1932. The Hindustan Holland Vanaspati Trading Co. in their turn assigned the mark to Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. Ltd. by a deed dated 27th January, 1938. The present Hindustan Levers Ltd. are the successors of Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. Ltd. They are the registered proprietors of the trade mark DALDA. This mark was registered in 1947.

( 4 ) ON 27th September, 1954 the appel lants Tarachand and Manohar Lal made an application for registration of a trade mark of class III in respect of their hair removing preparation called DALDA and DALDA BALSAFA. They claimed that their product is a hair removing soap. They carried on business under the name and style of Plaza Chemical Co. On 22nd June, 1955, the respondent, Hindustan Levers Ltd. ("levers") lodged a notice of opposition to the registration of the application. Levers claimed that registration should be refused as they themselves were the owners and users of the trade mark DALDA and that a confusion was likely to arise in the mind of the public that they were the makers and manufacturers of this hair removing preparation.

( 5 ) IN answer to t (his opposition the appellants said that the mark DALDA was first adopted in 1945 by one Jamal Ahmad who carried on business under the name and style of Plaza Chemical Co. He sold the said concern and the present appellants are the assignees of the rights in the business and that mark. This assignment, it is said, was made in favour of the appellants sometimes in 1952.

( 6 ) LEVERS advanced several grounds of objection to the appellants mark. These objections were heard by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks at New Delhi. By his order dated 30th July, 1962, he disallowed the application for registration as in his view it offended against the provisions of S. 11 of the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (the Act ). In para 7 findings of Deputy Registrar are given ).

( 8 ) IT is not necessary to decide all the points which were raised before the Deputy Registrar except the last one (deceptively Similar) for the disposal of this appeal. From his judgment it appears that the last ground was the substantial one on which he declined the application.

( 9 ) AS regards S. 11 (a) of the Act the Registrar is entitled to refuse the registration if it appears to him that the use of a mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. On this aspect of the case the Deputy Registrar found:

(A) In hair removing preparations including depilatory soaps vegetable oil is used. There was much in common in the ingredients to be used and in the process of manufacturing depilatory soaps and vegetable oil. (b) That Hindustan Levers themselves were the manufacturers of several well known brands of soaps. (c) That since hydrogenated oil and vegetable oils are used in the manufacture of soaps there was likelihood of confusion as was established by the evidence of the customers of Levers. (d) That in 1945 when the mark is stated to have been adopted by Jamal Ahmad the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants the reputation of Levers mark was well established and consequently the adoption and the use of the impugned mark was in contravention of the provisions of S. 8 (a) of the Act, of 1940.

( 10 ) THE Deputy Registrar summed up his conclusions in these words:

"on the evidence before me and on a review of case